Case Name: Thomas F. Cosgrove, Plaintiff, v. Albert Weierman, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1956-10-01
Citations: 4 Misc. 2d 798
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas F. Cosgrove, Plaintiff, v. Albert Weierman, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 798–799

Head Matter:
Thomas F. Cosgrove, Plaintiff, v. Albert Weierman, Defendant.
Supreme Court, Special Term, Richmond County,
October 1, 1956.
Thomas Schleier for plaintiff.
Hartsell, Harrington & Jacobs for Elizabeth M. Weierman, as executrix, appearing specially.

Opinion:
Edward G. Baker, J.
Motion denied. The accident having occurred in New Jersey, section 52 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law has no application. There is no authority, statutory or otherwise, for continuing this action in personam against decedent's nonresident executrix. (McMaster v. Gould, 240 N. Y. 379; Bennett v. Harrisville Combing Mills, 204 Misc. 279.) In Leighton v. Roper (300 N. Y. 434), relied upon by plaintiff, the court was concerned with the question of the constitutionality of chapter 719 of the Laws of 1945 amending section 52 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. There is nothing in the court's opinion in that case to support the argument that defendant's appearance in this action was intended to and did bind his executrix as well as himself.