Coho v. McNeil Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coho v. McNeil Construction Co.

122 A.D.2d 103, 504 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59169

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 103 (Coho v. McNeil Construction 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

Coho v. McNeil Construction Co., 122 A.D.2d 103, 504 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), entered April 8, 1985, which is in favor of the defendants and against him, upon a jury verdict that he did not suffer a “serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law former § 671 (4) (now § 5102 [d]).

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The jury was at liberty to accept or reject the plaintiff’s medical testimony (see, Brennan v Bauman & Sons Buses, 107 AD2d 654). Although the plaintiff’s medical testimony was uncontroverted, it was, at the very least, equivocal with respect to the issue of whether the limitation of the use of the plaintiff’s thumb was consequential or significant. Accordingly, on the record before us we cannot say that the original trier [104]*104of fact has assessed the evidence incorrectly (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498). A fortiori, the plaintiff did not establish that he suffered a "serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law former § 671 (4) as a matter of law, nor can it be said that the verdict in the defendant’s favor and against him was against the weight of the evidence. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kooper, 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, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), entered April 8, 1985, which is in favor of the defendants and against him, upon a jury verdict that he did not suffer a “serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law former § 671 (4) (now § 5102 [d]).

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The jury was at liberty to accept or reject the plaintiff’s medical testimony (see, Brennan v Bauman & Sons Buses, 107 AD2d 654). Although the plaintiff’s medical testimony was uncontroverted, it was, at the very least, equivocal with respect to the issue of whether the limitation of the use of the plaintiff’s thumb was consequential or significant. Accordingly, on the record before us we cannot say that the original trier [104]*104of fact has assessed the evidence incorrectly (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498). A fortiori, the plaintiff did not establish that he suffered a "serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law former § 671 (4) as a matter of law, nor can it be said that the verdict in the defendant’s favor and against him was against the weight of the evidence. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 103, 504 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coho-v-mcneil-construction-co-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack