Atkins v. Francesca Realty Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Atkins v. Francesca Realty Associates

238 A.D.2d 457, 657 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008

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

DecidedApril 21, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 457 (Atkins v. Francesca Realty Associates) 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

Atkins v. Francesca Realty Associates, 238 A.D.2d 457, 657 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated January 31, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $430,057.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly admitted photographs of the accident scene as evidence that the defendant had constructive notice of the parking lot in which the injured plaintiff fell. The injured plaintiff s testimony established that the photographs were taken six days after the accident and accurately depicted the scené on the day of the accident (see, Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth., [458]*45848 NY2d 903; Batton v Elghanayan, 43 NY2d 898; see also, Farrar v Teicholz, 173 AD2d 674). Nor did the Supreme Court err in refusing to sever the liability and damages issues for separate trials (see, CPLR 603; 22 NYCRR 202.42; Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449). Furthermore, the jury’s verdict did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Dopwell v City of New York, 227 AD2d 436).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Sullivan and McGinity, 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 defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated January 31, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $430,057.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly admitted photographs of the accident scene as evidence that the defendant had constructive notice of the parking lot in which the injured plaintiff fell. The injured plaintiff s testimony established that the photographs were taken six days after the accident and accurately depicted the scené on the day of the accident (see, Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth., [458]*45848 NY2d 903; Batton v Elghanayan, 43 NY2d 898; see also, Farrar v Teicholz, 173 AD2d 674). Nor did the Supreme Court err in refusing to sever the liability and damages issues for separate trials (see, CPLR 603; 22 NYCRR 202.42; Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449). Furthermore, the jury’s verdict did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Dopwell v City of New York, 227 AD2d 436).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 457, 657 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkins-v-francesca-realty-associates-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack