From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hohenstein v. Mosher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 11, 1971
36 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Opinion

February 11, 1971


Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Albany County, entered upon a verdict of no cause of action. The instant litigation developed from an automobile collision which occurred at 1:45 A.M. on February 17, 1963 at the intersection of Washington Avenue and Rosemont Street in the City of Albany. There was usual conflict of testimony as to fault and we find no basis to disturb the jury's verdict. We do not find that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. In view of the testimony in the record it cannot be said that the jury could not reasonably have determined that respondent was not negligent and reached the conclusion of no cause of action as to the appellants ( Rapant v. Ogsbury, 279 App. Div. 298). Appellants also urge that the Trial Judge committed reversible error in refusing to charge subdivisions (a) and (b) of section 1140 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. We cannot agree that these subdivisions should have been charged in the instant case. Traffic proceeding on Washington Avenue was not controlled by any traffic signals while traffic proceeding on Rosemont Street was controlled by a stop sign. Thus Washington Avenue was a through highway (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 149) and cars proceeding on Washington Avenue had a preferential right of way over vehicles proceeding from Rosemont. Sections 1142 Veh. Traf. and 1172 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law deal specifically with the rights and obligations of vehicles at intersections controlled by stop signs and thus supersede the more general right of way rules of section 1140 (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1140, subd. [c]; O'Connor v. Eggleston, 31 A.D.2d 735, mot. for lv. to app. den. 23 N.Y.2d 646; see, also, 1 N.Y. PJI 168; 4 N.Y. Jur., Automobiles, §§ 180, 181, 184). Petoff v. Wilkins ( 277 App. Div. 748) is no longer controlling in view of the revisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and even if still controlling would not be applicable here ( McCoy v. Gorenstein, 282 App. Div. 984; McLean v. McKinley, 282 App. Div. 138, resettled order affd. 307 N.Y. 920). Judgment affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, P.J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hohenstein v. Mosher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 11, 1971
36 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
Case details for

Hohenstein v. Mosher

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE HOHENSTEIN, Plaintiff, and HELENE HOHENSTEIN, Appellant, v. JOHN L…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Feb 11, 1971

Citations

36 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Citing Cases

Le Claire v. Pratt

In any event, such a brief period of time is generally insufficient to raise a question of fact regarding a…

Crespo v. New York City Housing Authority

Nor did the court commit any charging errors. Plaintiff's request for a charge on Vehicle and Traffic Law §…