Borelli v. A. H. Robins Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Borelli v. A. H. Robins Co.

81 A.D.2d 650, 440 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11173

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

DecidedApril 27, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 650 (Borelli v. A. H. Robins Co.) 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

Borelli v. A. H. Robins Co., 81 A.D.2d 650, 440 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11173 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

•— In an action to recover damages upon the theory of strict products liability, plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 29, 1980 in favor of the defendant, after a nonjury trial, and (2) an order of the same court, entered December 23, 1980-, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Judgment and order affirmed, with one bill of costs. Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff’s action was timely, it is clear from the record that she failed to prove her case by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence. Damiani, J.P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

•— In an action to recover damages upon the theory of strict products liability, plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 29, 1980 in favor of the defendant, after a nonjury trial, and (2) an order of the same court, entered December 23, 1980-, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Judgment and order affirmed, with one bill of costs. Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff’s action was timely, it is clear from the record that she failed to prove her case by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence. Damiani, J.P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 650, 440 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borelli-v-a-h-robins-co-nyappdiv-1981.