Legal Opinion

Aspinall v. City of New York

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

Decided June 15, 1927PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs. In taking plaintiff to his home, the driver of respondent’s automobile was not acting in the discharge of the city’s business. The act was beyond the authority of the municipal corporation. Section 282-e of the Highway Law does not impose any liability upon the city under the proof here. (Downing v. City of New York, 219 App. Div. 444.) Kelly, P. J., Kapper, Lazansky and Hagarty, JJ., concur; Young, J., dissents, being of opinion that the Legislature, in passing section 282-e of the Highway Law, intended that this provision should have general application to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Downing v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Fox v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  2. Fox v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
  3. Fox v. City of SyracuseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
  4. District of Columbia v. AbramsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1959
  5. Irolla v. City of New YorkCity of New York Municipal Court · 1935

1 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