Barnes v. S.T. Kociszewski

4 A.D.3d 824, 771 N.Y.S.2d 429, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1462
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 11, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 824 (Barnes v. S.T. Kociszewski) 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
Barnes v. S.T. Kociszewski, 4 A.D.3d 824, 771 N.Y.S.2d 429, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

[825]*825Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered January 6, 2003. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict, granted a new trial on the issue whether plaintiff Lomax Barnes sustained economic loss in excess of basic economic loss and vacated the judgment in favor of defendants.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Lomax Barnes (plaintiff) as a result of an automobile accident. Supreme Court properly granted in part plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict of no cause of action and granted a new trial on the issue whether plaintiff sustained economic loss in excess of basic economic loss (see Insurance Law § 5102 [a]; § 5104 [a]). The court’s error in foreclosing the jury from considering that issue unless it found that plaintiff sustained a serious injury (see § 5102 [d]) warrants a new trial (see Tortorello v Landi, 136 AD2d 545, 546 [1988]; see generally Montgomery v Daniels, 38 NY2d 41, 47-48 [1975]; 1A NY PJI3d 381 [2004]). Contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiffs made a sufficient showing that plaintiff sustained economic loss in excess of basic economic loss to warrant submission of the issue to the jury. Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Green, Pine, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

Fry v. Doyle
2024 NY Slip Op 02428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
COOK, CURTIS v. PETERSON, ALYSSA S.
137 A.D.3d 1594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
CREWE, ARIANE v. PISANOVA, TATJANA
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Crewe v. Pisanova
124 A.D.3d 1264 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
WILSON, HAROLD v. COLOSIMO, CHRISTOPHER
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Wilson v. Colosimo
101 A.D.3d 1765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Spanos v. Fanto
63 A.D.3d 1665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Colvin v. Slawoniewski
15 A.D.3d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 A.D.3d 824, 771 N.Y.S.2d 429, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-st-kociszewski-nyappdiv-2004.