Chul Hee Yoo v. Vocatura

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chul Hee Yoo v. Vocatura

280 A.D.2d 634, 720 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1839

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 634 (Chul Hee Yoo v. Vocatura) 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

Chul Hee Yoo v. Vocatura, 280 A.D.2d 634, 720 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), dated November 23, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict that the defendant Linda Vocatura was negligent but that her negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134; Delgado v Board of Educ., 65 AD2d 547, affd 48 NY2d 643). In the present case, there is no basis to set aside the verdict. Goldstein, J. P., Florio, Luciano and H. Miller, 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, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), dated November 23, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict that the defendant Linda Vocatura was negligent but that her negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134; Delgado v Board of Educ., 65 AD2d 547, affd 48 NY2d 643). In the present case, there is no basis to set aside the verdict. Goldstein, J. P., Florio, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 634, 720 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chul-hee-yoo-v-vocatura-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack