Castillo v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Castillo v. New York City Housing Authority

266 A.D.2d 55, 698 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11606

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 55 (Castillo v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Castillo v. New York City Housing Authority, 266 A.D.2d 55, 698 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Giamboi, J.), entered May 14, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff a total of $787,126.17, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court correctly instructed the jury as to notice, and we decline defendant’s invitation to revisit our holding to that effect in Woolfalk v New York City Hous. Auth. (263 AD2d 355, 356). The balance of defendant’s arguments are based on nothing more than its own “self-serving view of the evidence,” and, as such, afford “no reason to disturb” the appealed determination (Daley v Related Cos., 236 AD2d 340, lv denied 90 NY2d 803). The verdict was properly premised on the jury’s evaluation of the duly admitted trial evidence (see, e.g., Young v City of New York, 250 AD2d 383), including its evaluation of the conflicting expert testimony (see, e.g., Koffler v Biller, 262 AD2d 150). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Giamboi, J.), entered May 14, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff a total of $787,126.17, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court correctly instructed the jury as to notice, and we decline defendant’s invitation to revisit our holding to that effect in Woolfalk v New York City Hous. Auth. (263 AD2d 355, 356). The balance of defendant’s arguments are based on nothing more than its own “self-serving view of the evidence,” and, as such, afford “no reason to disturb” the appealed determination (Daley v Related Cos., 236 AD2d 340, lv denied 90 NY2d 803). The verdict was properly premised on the jury’s evaluation of the duly admitted trial evidence (see, e.g., Young v City of New York, 250 AD2d 383), including its evaluation of the conflicting expert testimony (see, e.g., Koffler v Biller, 262 AD2d 150). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 55, 698 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castillo-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1999.