Legal Opinion
Conderman v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 8, 1998PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
William P. Polito, J.
The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is partially granted. The plaintiffs are entitled to a “res ipsa” position at trial regarding pole No. 103 and the two poles carrying the “live” wires which struck the plaintiffs Napolitano’s vehicle. Defendants are also precluded from introducing evidence to rebut the presumption of negligence, but are not precluded from testing and/or introducing results and/or opinions from tests of the samples of pole No. 103 found after the accident to rebut the presumption of negligence. (Assuming the pieces can be…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kirkland v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 1984
- Squitieri v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Graves v. DaleyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1988
- Nally v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2000
- Conderman v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- In Re WechslerDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2000
- Mead v. Papa RazziSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2006
- Mead v. Papa RazziSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2006