Arroyo v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arroyo v. State

220 A.D.2d 472, 632 N.Y.S.2d 583

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

DocketClaim No. 75128

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 472 (Arroyo v. State) 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

Arroyo v. State, 220 A.D.2d 472, 632 N.Y.S.2d 583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover [473]*473damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Rossetti, J.), entered May 19, 1993, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded him damages in the principal sum of $10,000.

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

Contrary to the claimant’s contention, the trial court’s finding that he failed to establish that he suffered from a seizure disorder was not against the weight of the evidence. While the court should have granted the claimant’s motion to reopen the trial to admit the results of a neurological evaluation (see, Matter of Village of Roslyn Harbor [Berger], 26 AD2d 936), upon our review and consideration of those records, together with the other evidence and testimony in this case, we conclude that a different result is not warranted by the facts. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover [473]*473damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Rossetti, J.), entered May 19, 1993, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded him damages in the principal sum of $10,000.

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

Contrary to the claimant’s contention, the trial court’s finding that he failed to establish that he suffered from a seizure disorder was not against the weight of the evidence. While the court should have granted the claimant’s motion to reopen the trial to admit the results of a neurological evaluation (see, Matter of Village of Roslyn Harbor [Berger], 26 AD2d 936), upon our review and consideration of those records, together with the other evidence and testimony in this case, we conclude that a different result is not warranted by the facts. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 472, 632 N.Y.S.2d 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arroyo-v-state-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack