New York Court of Appeals, 1976

Lyons v. De Vore

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 1, 1976 · Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur

39 N.Y.2d 971; 354 N.E.2d 848; 387 N.Y.S.2d 108; 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2914

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Kreppein v. Celotex Corporation (2d Cir. 1992)
In re BROOKLYN NAVY YARD ASBESTOS LITIGATION (Joint Eastern and Southern District Asbestos Litigation) (2d Cir. 1992)
Kreppein v. Celotex Corp. (2d Cir. 1992)
Gonzalez v. New York City Housing Authority (N.Y. 1991)
Pollicina v. Misericordia Hospital Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Hanson v. County of Erie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Farrar v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co. (New York Supreme Court 1986)
Smith v. Stark (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Franchel v. Sims (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Memorandum. The observations of the sole available eyewitness to this fatal collision between two automobiles at or about the center line of a roadway, though covering only the briefest interval of distance and time before the impact took place, when added to the photographic and other physical evidence garnered by the investigating police officers at the scene and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, constituted sufficient proof from which a jury could find, as it here did, that there was negligence on the part of the operators of both vehicles. In affirming, the Appellate Division also had a right to take into account the fact that, in the reconstruction of an event that has been produced quickly and unexpectedly by the dynamics of rapidly moving motor vehicles, "precision” of proof cannot always be expected or required (cf. Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp., 17 NY2d 132), most especially where neither the driver of one of the vehicles, who is dead, nor the driver of the second, who has amnesia for the events of the accident, or, for that matter, the sole passenger, whose estate was awarded damages for his death in this case, were available to testify (Noseworthy v City of New York, 298 NY 76; Schechter v Klanfer, 28 NY2d 228).

Since there were no exceptions taken at trial to the charge to the jury, any present claim of error with respect thereto was not preserved for our review (CPLR 5501, subd [a], par 3; McConnon v Catalano, 39 NY2d 881).

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division must be affirmed.

*973 Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.