Crannell v. Serrano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crannell v. Serrano

194 A.D.2d 641, 599 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6133

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

DecidedJune 14, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 641 (Crannell v. Serrano) 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

Crannell v. Serrano, 194 A.D.2d 641, 599 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered January 4, 1991, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, dismissed her complaint, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, entered February 15, 1991, which also awarded the defendants costs and disbursements upon the dismissal.

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment entered January 4, 1991, is dismissed, as that judgment was superseded by the amended judgment entered February 15, 1991; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment entered February 15, 1991, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

[642]*642The jury’s verdict that the defendants were negligent but that their negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident was not inconsistent with or unsupported by the evidence. The conclusion that it was the plaintiff’s attempt to pass the defendants’ truck on the right on a single lane road, rather than the defendants’ attempt to turn right after signaling a left turn, which was the proximate cause of the accident, is supported by sufficient evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493).

We find the plaintiff’s other contentions to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Joy, 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 plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered January 4, 1991, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, dismissed her complaint, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, entered February 15, 1991, which also awarded the defendants costs and disbursements upon the dismissal.

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment entered January 4, 1991, is dismissed, as that judgment was superseded by the amended judgment entered February 15, 1991; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment entered February 15, 1991, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

[642]*642The jury’s verdict that the defendants were negligent but that their negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident was not inconsistent with or unsupported by the evidence. The conclusion that it was the plaintiff’s attempt to pass the defendants’ truck on the right on a single lane road, rather than the defendants’ attempt to turn right after signaling a left turn, which was the proximate cause of the accident, is supported by sufficient evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493).

We find the plaintiff’s other contentions to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 641, 599 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crannell-v-serrano-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack