Calder v. Grand Union Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calder v. Grand Union Co.

127 A.D.2d 811, 512 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43304

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 811 (Calder v. Grand Union 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

Calder v. Grand Union Co., 127 A.D.2d 811, 512 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), dated December 3, 1985, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability, dismissed their complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the defendant, as we must, the evidence does not so preponderate in the plaintiffs’ favor that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, e.g., Taype v City of New York, 82 AD2d 648). It appears that the jury could reasonably have found that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the plaintiff Jerry Calder’s independently chosen course of conduct.

We find the plaintiffs’ other contentions to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), dated December 3, 1985, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability, dismissed their complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the defendant, as we must, the evidence does not so preponderate in the plaintiffs’ favor that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, e.g., Taype v City of New York, 82 AD2d 648). It appears that the jury could reasonably have found that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the plaintiff Jerry Calder’s independently chosen course of conduct.

We find the plaintiffs’ other contentions to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 811, 512 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calder-v-grand-union-co-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack