Alfano v. Arthur Finnegan Post 1443, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alfano v. Arthur Finnegan Post 1443, Inc.

250 A.D.2d 557, 671 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4895

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

DecidedMay 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 557 (Alfano v. Arthur Finnegan Post 1443, Inc.) 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

Alfano v. Arthur Finnegan Post 1443, Inc., 250 A.D.2d 557, 671 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated March 17, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to the plaintiffs’ contention that the jury verdict, finding that the defendant’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the injuries of the plaintiff Donna Alfano, is [558]*558against the weight of the evidence. The verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746; cf., Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Moreover, the plaintiffs’ contention regarding the jury instruction on proximate cause is not preserved for appellate review (see, Rupert v Sellers, 50 NY2d 881, 882-883, cert denied 449 US 901). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated March 17, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to the plaintiffs’ contention that the jury verdict, finding that the defendant’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the injuries of the plaintiff Donna Alfano, is [558]*558against the weight of the evidence. The verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746; cf., Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Moreover, the plaintiffs’ contention regarding the jury instruction on proximate cause is not preserved for appellate review (see, Rupert v Sellers, 50 NY2d 881, 882-883, cert denied 449 US 901). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 557, 671 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfano-v-arthur-finnegan-post-1443-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack