Legal Opinion
Brindley v. Krizsan
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 5, 1963PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum by the Court.
Judgment herein in all respects affirmed, on facts and the law, with costs to defendant-respondent as against appellants. Proof of ownership of a vehicle creates a presumption that the driver was using the vehicle with the owner’s permission, express or implied. This presumption is rebuttable but, even in the case of substantial evidence to the contrary, the question of consent and authority is ordinarily one of fact. (Leotta v. Plessinger, 8 N Y 2d 449, 461, and cases cited; see, also, May v. Heiney, 12 N Y 2d 683.) Here, theire is support for the finding of the trial…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Grant v. KnepperNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Jackson v. Brown & Kleinhenz, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Aarons v. Standard Varnish WorksNew York Supreme Court · 1937
- Aarons v. Standard Varnish WorksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bernard v. MumuniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Watson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Carter v. Travelers InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Wagman v. HooperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Sylvia Tomack and Murray Tomack v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.