Collins v. Seligman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collins v. Seligman

276 A.D.2d 662, 717 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10704

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 23, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Town of Hempstead appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered June 4, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 88% at fault in the happening of the accident and the plaintiff Rosalie Collins 12% at fault, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $136,400.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to contentions of the appellant, Town of Hemp-stead, the jury verdict apportioning liability was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence and therefore should not be set aside (see, Walker v Zdanowitz, 265 AD2d 404; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Moreover, the award of damages was not excessive as it does not deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [d]; Rhames v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 260 AD2d 623; Walsh v Kings Plaza Replacement Serv., 239 AD2d 408; Senko v Fonda, 53 AD2d 638; see, Tariq v Miller, 240 AD2d 395).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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, etc., the defendant Town of Hempstead appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered June 4, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 88% at fault in the happening of the accident and the plaintiff Rosalie Collins 12% at fault, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $136,400.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to contentions of the appellant, Town of Hemp-stead, the jury verdict apportioning liability was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence and therefore should not be set aside (see, Walker v Zdanowitz, 265 AD2d 404; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Moreover, the award of damages was not excessive as it does not deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [d]; Rhames v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 260 AD2d 623; Walsh v Kings Plaza Replacement Serv., 239 AD2d 408; Senko v Fonda, 53 AD2d 638; see, Tariq v Miller, 240 AD2d 395).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Collins v. Seligman, 276 A.D.2d 662, 717 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 662 (Collins v. Seligman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related