Boone v. Hopkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boone v. Hopkins

288 A.D.2d 916, 732 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10663

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 916 (Boone v. Hopkins) 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

Boone v. Hopkins, 288 A.D.2d 916, 732 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although the order appealed from was subsumed within the final judgment (CPLR 5501 [a]), in the exercise of our discretion we treat the appeal as taken from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]; Chin v Kaplan, 280 AD2d 892). We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of proximate cause at the close of proof. Both plaintiff’s medical expert and defendants’ medical expert concluded that plaintiff sustained a shoulder injury as a result of the automobile accident at issue, and thus there was no rational process by which a jury could have found that there was no proximate cause (see, Clemente v Impastato, 274 AJD2d 771, 773; see also, Sheehan v City of New York, 40 NY2d 496, 502; Miecznikowski v Robida, 278 AD2d 793, Iv denied 96 NY2d 709; Gusek v Compass Transp. Corp., 266 AD2d 923; cf., Cross v Finch Pruyn & Co., 281 AD2d 836). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J. — Negligence.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although the order appealed from was subsumed within the final judgment (CPLR 5501 [a]), in the exercise of our discretion we treat the appeal as taken from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]; Chin v Kaplan, 280 AD2d 892). We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of proximate cause at the close of proof. Both plaintiff’s medical expert and defendants’ medical expert concluded that plaintiff sustained a shoulder injury as a result of the automobile accident at issue, and thus there was no rational process by which a jury could have found that there was no proximate cause (see, Clemente v Impastato, 274 AJD2d 771, 773; see also, Sheehan v City of New York, 40 NY2d 496, 502; Miecznikowski v Robida, 278 AD2d 793, Iv denied 96 NY2d 709; Gusek v Compass Transp. Corp., 266 AD2d 923; cf., Cross v Finch Pruyn & Co., 281 AD2d 836). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J. — Negligence.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 916, 732 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boone-v-hopkins-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack