Coppa v. Persico Contracting & Trucking Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coppa v. Persico Contracting & Trucking Co.

248 A.D.2d 581, 669 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2893

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 581 (Coppa v. Persico Contracting & Trucking 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

Coppa v. Persico Contracting & Trucking Co., 248 A.D.2d 581, 669 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising from an automobile accident, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered March 20, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict determining that the accident was not a proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff Rosa Coppa, and upon the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The record establishes that the [582]*582verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising from an automobile accident, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered March 20, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict determining that the accident was not a proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff Rosa Coppa, and upon the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The record establishes that the [582]*582verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 581, 669 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coppa-v-persico-contracting-trucking-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack