From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schultz v. Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 7, 1948
273 App. Div. 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Opinion

January 7, 1948.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Albany County, RUSSELL, J.

Ungerman Lynn, attorneys ( Morton M.Z. Lynn of counsel), for appellant.

Carter Conboy, attorneys ( James Conboy of counsel), for respondent.


Appeal from an order dismissing the complaint under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The action is for damages claimed to have been received by plaintiff-appellant on or about May 9, 1944, while riding in a passenger bus owned by the Albany Transit Company, which was being driven in a negligent manner by its employee, the defendant in this action. The plaintiff was represented by other counsel in two previous actions brought in connection with the same claimed injury, the first against the Albany Transit Company, the complaint being verified and dated September 5, 1944, which action was discontinued by stipulation in December, 1944; the second was commenced in February, 1945, against the United Transportation Co., Inc., and therein it was asserted that the transportation company was the owner of the bus which was being driven in a negligent manner by its employee, the defendant-respondent in this appeal The latter action was tried and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which was entered in the Office of the Clerk of Rensselaer County. In August, 1945, the defendant transportation company deposited the sum then due upon that judgment with the Clerk of Rensselaer County, whereupon that official certified that the judgment was duly satisfied and discharged and notified this appellant, plaintiff in that action, and her then attorney. Appellant, through her present attorneys now brings this third action, the complaint alleging that the defendant-respondent herein was driving a bus belonging to the Albany Transit Company.

Appellant has had but one injury which was received while riding in a bus of which the present respondent was the driver. There was a single cause of action, and having successfully prosecuted it to judgment in an action against the United Transportation Co., Inc., no cause of action remains which may be prosecuted against the defendant-respondent herein. ( Wolf v. Kenyon, 242 App. Div. 116; Luce v. New York. Chicago St. Louis R.R. Co., 213 App. Div. 374, appeal dismissed 241 N.Y. 541. ) Daly v. Terpening ( 287 N.Y. 611) cited by appellant, has no application.

The order should be affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements.

HILL, P.J., HEFFERNAN, FOSTER and DEYO, JJ., concur; RUSSELL, J., taking no part.

Order affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements.


Summaries of

Schultz v. Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 7, 1948
273 App. Div. 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)
Case details for

Schultz v. Baker

Case Details

Full title:SARAH SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. LEONARD BAKER, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 7, 1948

Citations

273 App. Div. 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)
76 N.Y.S.2d 527

Citing Cases

Liebman v. County of Westchester

Separate actions against different joint tort-feasors are permissible ( Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v.…