Cikoja v. Elstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cikoja v. Elstein

81 A.D.3d 515, 916 N.Y.S.2d 503

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 81 A.D.3d 515 (Cikoja v. Elstein) 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

Cikoja v. Elstein, 81 A.D.3d 515, 916 N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet Daniels, J.), entered October 5, 2009, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 21, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence; issues of credibility are for the jury, whose resolution thereof is entitled to deference (see Crespo v Chan, 54 AD3d 621 [2008]). There was ample evidence from which the jury could fairly infer that plaintiff was not credible and did not sustain a serious injury to his right shoulder as a result of the 2003 automobile accident.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet Daniels, J.), entered October 5, 2009, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 21, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence; issues of credibility are for the jury, whose resolution thereof is entitled to deference (see Crespo v Chan, 54 AD3d 621 [2008]). There was ample evidence from which the jury could fairly infer that plaintiff was not credible and did not sustain a serious injury to his right shoulder as a result of the 2003 automobile accident.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.3d 515, 916 N.Y.S.2d 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cikoja-v-elstein-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack