Barrett v. McNulty
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum. There was uncontradicted evidence that the defendant driver did not have express permission to operate the motor vehicle involved in the accident; and there was no competent evidence from which permission or authority could be inferred. Thus, the presumption of permissive use was overcome and the complaint as against the owner and the lessee was properly dismissed at the close of all the evidence. Evidentiary effect was properly given the proof of defendant operator’s conviction, upon his plea of guilty, of larceny of the vehicle involved; but inasmuch as the evidence required…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Country-Wide Insurance v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2006
- Bruno v. PrivilegiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Headley v. TesslerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Allstate Indemnity Co. v. NelsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Naidu v. HarwinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.