Legal Opinion

Boston v. Dunham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 13, 2000Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSpain, J.

While we agree with the majority that defendants John J. McCool and NYNEX Corporation were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, we disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendants Ingrid H. Dunham (hereinafter Dunham) and John Dunham were not entitled to similar relief. Contrary to the majority’s suggestion, there is absolutely no evidence that Dunham “blindly and wantonly” drove her vehicle into the intersection when she knew or should have known of the presence of the motorcycle driven by Gregory Boston (hereinafter decedent) in the intersection…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Shea v. JudsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
  2. McGraw v. RanieriAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  3. Wilke v. PriceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  4. Matt v. Tricil (N. Y.), Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  5. Greco v. BoyceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API