Rosenthal v. Monastra
Janice Rosenthal, an Infant, by Her Father and Natural Guardian, Harold Rosenthal v. Nicholas A. Monastra
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 22, 1966, reversed and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied, without costs. The infant plaintiff, 18 years of age at the time of the accident which is the basis of this action, was a passenger in a car owned and operated by defendant. The night was clear and the road dry. The car suddenly swerved off the road. There is no clear explanation in the papers on the motion as to how the accident occurred. In our opinion, it was an improvident exercise of discretion by the learned Special Term to grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The issue of negligence and any other relevant issues should be tried and determined by a jury (Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., 17 N Y 2d. 132, and cases there cited). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.