Byrnes v. Loscalzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Byrnes v. Loscalzo

210 A.D.2d 449, 620 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13176

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 449 (Byrnes v. Loscalzo) 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

Byrnes v. Loscalzo, 210 A.D.2d 449, 620 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), entered April 20, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find no error in the trial court’s charge to the jury on the emergency doctrine in this case. Viewing the evidence in [450]*450the light most favorable to the defendant, a jury could conclude that the defendant was faced with an emergency when the plaintiff suddenly changed direction and crossed the street (see, Sonntag v Dor-Vac Corp., 192 AD2d 594). Furthermore, the verdict in favor of the defendant is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Friedmann and Krausman, 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, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), entered April 20, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find no error in the trial court’s charge to the jury on the emergency doctrine in this case. Viewing the evidence in [450]*450the light most favorable to the defendant, a jury could conclude that the defendant was faced with an emergency when the plaintiff suddenly changed direction and crossed the street (see, Sonntag v Dor-Vac Corp., 192 AD2d 594). Furthermore, the verdict in favor of the defendant is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 449, 620 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrnes-v-loscalzo-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack