Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harnik v. Levine

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 1952Published

1Dissent

Edér, J. (dissenting).

I do not see that either of the plaintiffs has suffered any recoverable damage.

Plaintiff husband is the owner of an automobile which he parked alongside the curb. Defendant is also the owner of a car which he in turn parked alongside plaintiff’s car. As a consequence, when plaintiff, who was accompanied by his wife *651(a coplaintiff), sought to leave in his car, he was unable to do so; he could not move his car because of defendant’s car being double parked alongside plaintiff’s car, making it impossible for plaintiff to pull away from the curb. Plaintiff was therefore…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Comstock v. WilsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Dallas Telephone Co. v. Oak Cliff Transfer & Storage Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API