Aldrich v. Hagan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aldrich v. Hagan

243 A.D.2d 432, 665 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9355

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 432 (Aldrich v. Hagan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aldrich v. Hagan, 243 A.D.2d 432, 665 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered October 4, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court was correct in denying the plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. Despite the divergent versions of how the rear-end vehicular collision occurred, we find that a reasonable view of the evidence supports a finding that the plaintiffs vehicle came to an abrupt stop in an intersection after the traffic officer had waved to her to proceed, and that the defendant Douglas Hagan could not have avoided the collision (see, Gross v Napoli, 216 AD2d 524; Koopersmith v General Motors Corp., 63 AD2d 1013, 1014). The jury verdict finding that the defendants were not negligent in the happening of this accident was reached by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134; Glick v Hittner & Sons, 111 AD2d 150). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered October 4, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court was correct in denying the plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. Despite the divergent versions of how the rear-end vehicular collision occurred, we find that a reasonable view of the evidence supports a finding that the plaintiffs vehicle came to an abrupt stop in an intersection after the traffic officer had waved to her to proceed, and that the defendant Douglas Hagan could not have avoided the collision (see, Gross v Napoli, 216 AD2d 524; Koopersmith v General Motors Corp., 63 AD2d 1013, 1014). The jury verdict finding that the defendants were not negligent in the happening of this accident was reached by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134; Glick v Hittner & Sons, 111 AD2d 150). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 432, 665 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aldrich-v-hagan-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack