Baptiste v. Feliciano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baptiste v. Feliciano

275 A.D.2d 385, 712 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8848

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 21, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), entered July 21, 1999, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ respective motions pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in their favor as a matter of law. The jury could not, by any rational process, have found in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, as the plaintiff’s medical expert never testified that the plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by the automobile accident (see, Naughton v Arden Hill Hosp., 215 AD2d 810; Smith v Vosburgh, 176 AD2d 259). O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Smith, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), entered July 21, 1999, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ respective motions pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ respective motions pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in their favor as a matter of law. The jury could not, by any rational process, have found in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, as the plaintiff’s medical expert never testified that the plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by the automobile accident (see, Naughton v Arden Hill Hosp., 215 AD2d 810; Smith v Vosburgh, 176 AD2d 259). O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Baptiste v. Feliciano, 275 A.D.2d 385, 712 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 385 (Baptiste v. Feliciano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related