Buckley v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buckley v. City of New York

200 A.D.2d 484, 608 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 481

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Buckley v. City of New York. Read the opinion of the Court — 176 A.D.2d 207 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 20, 1994·Published

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, [485]*485New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 16, 1992, upon a verdict determining that defendants’ negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, dated April 1, 1992, which denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the testimony of defendants’ medical experts was equivocal, its weight was a matter for the jury. The verdict sheet properly indicated that defendants’ negligence need only have been a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injury, and the court’s instruction on proximate cause did not erroneously convey otherwise. Any initial jury uncertainty with respect to the procedural aspects of reporting the verdict was remedied, and there was no substantial jury confusion such as would warrant setting aside the verdict. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, [485]*485New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 16, 1992, upon a verdict determining that defendants’ negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, dated April 1, 1992, which denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the testimony of defendants’ medical experts was equivocal, its weight was a matter for the jury. The verdict sheet properly indicated that defendants’ negligence need only have been a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injury, and the court’s instruction on proximate cause did not erroneously convey otherwise. Any initial jury uncertainty with respect to the procedural aspects of reporting the verdict was remedied, and there was no substantial jury confusion such as would warrant setting aside the verdict. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.

Buckley v. City of New York, 200 A.D.2d 484, 608 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

200 A.D.2d 484 (Buckley v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.