Cox v. Catsimatidis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cox v. Catsimatidis

247 A.D.2d 506, 669 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1486

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 506 (Cox v. Catsimatidis) 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

Cox v. Catsimatidis, 247 A.D.2d 506, 669 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), entered January 16, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the total sum of $144,982.60.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to deny the defendant’s application for an adjournment on the eve of trial in order to conduct an independent medical examination of the plaintiff and to obtain counsel for trial.

[507]*507The evidence was legally sufficient to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493). The testimony of the plaintiff and her witness was not incredible as a matter of law. Furthermore, the trial court’s conclusion that the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury was a defective barrier with metal prongs sticking out, which the defendant maintained in an unlit parking lot and over which the plaintiff fell, was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Greenberg v Behlen, 220 AD2d 720).

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein and Luciano, 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, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), entered January 16, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the total sum of $144,982.60.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to deny the defendant’s application for an adjournment on the eve of trial in order to conduct an independent medical examination of the plaintiff and to obtain counsel for trial.

[507]*507The evidence was legally sufficient to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493). The testimony of the plaintiff and her witness was not incredible as a matter of law. Furthermore, the trial court’s conclusion that the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury was a defective barrier with metal prongs sticking out, which the defendant maintained in an unlit parking lot and over which the plaintiff fell, was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Greenberg v Behlen, 220 AD2d 720).

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 506, 669 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-catsimatidis-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack