Antipenko v. Schmidke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antipenko v. Schmidke

255 A.D.2d 410, 680 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12015

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 410 (Antipenko v. Schmidke) 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

Antipenko v. Schmidke, 255 A.D.2d 410, 680 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages [411]*411for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), entered September 29, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability in favor of the defendant and against him, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We do not find that the jury’s verdict should be set aside as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. It cannot be said that the jury’s finding of no negligence in this “trip and fall” case could not be reached “on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Nordhauser v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 176 AD2d 787, 789; see also, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 135). Further, the court’s jury instructions regarding negligence were adequate to apprise the jury of the appropriate legal standards for evaluating the plaintiff’s claims on this record (cf., J.R. Loftus, Inc. v White, 85 NY2d 874, 876).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention does not warrant disturbing the verdict. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages [411]*411for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), entered September 29, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability in favor of the defendant and against him, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We do not find that the jury’s verdict should be set aside as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. It cannot be said that the jury’s finding of no negligence in this “trip and fall” case could not be reached “on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Nordhauser v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 176 AD2d 787, 789; see also, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 135). Further, the court’s jury instructions regarding negligence were adequate to apprise the jury of the appropriate legal standards for evaluating the plaintiff’s claims on this record (cf., J.R. Loftus, Inc. v White, 85 NY2d 874, 876).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention does not warrant disturbing the verdict. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 410, 680 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antipenko-v-schmidke-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack