Alvarado v. Baily

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alvarado v. Baily

186 A.D.2d 79, 587 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10774

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 79 (Alvarado v. Baily) 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

Alvarado v. Baily, 186 A.D.2d 79, 587 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered May 8, 1991, which upon a jury’s verdict, awarded plaintiff no damages for defendant’s legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence presented the jury with questions of expert credibility which it could resolve in favor of defendants. Findings that neither the medical condition for which plaintiff seeks to recover nor her inability to work was the direct result of the 1987 train mishap, and that any legal action in connection therewith would have been for naught are not against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff’s proof of damages was speculative, and defendant attorneys’ concession of liability' for having failed to serve a timely notice of claim did not render it less so. Nor did the court commit any evidentiary error that could have had an effect on the weight of the credible evidence. The complaint drafted by defendants on plaintiff’s behalf but not allowed into evidence, bore no probative value, while the unrelated insurance report that was admitted into [80]*80evidence bore directly on plaintiffs credibility. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered May 8, 1991, which upon a jury’s verdict, awarded plaintiff no damages for defendant’s legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence presented the jury with questions of expert credibility which it could resolve in favor of defendants. Findings that neither the medical condition for which plaintiff seeks to recover nor her inability to work was the direct result of the 1987 train mishap, and that any legal action in connection therewith would have been for naught are not against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff’s proof of damages was speculative, and defendant attorneys’ concession of liability' for having failed to serve a timely notice of claim did not render it less so. Nor did the court commit any evidentiary error that could have had an effect on the weight of the credible evidence. The complaint drafted by defendants on plaintiff’s behalf but not allowed into evidence, bore no probative value, while the unrelated insurance report that was admitted into [80]*80evidence bore directly on plaintiffs credibility. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 79, 587 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarado-v-baily-nyappdiv-1992.