D'Auria v. Raleigh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Auria v. Raleigh

88 A.D.2d 925, 451 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17265

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

DecidedJune 7, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 925 (D'Auria v. Raleigh) 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

D'Auria v. Raleigh, 88 A.D.2d 925, 451 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property sustained in a motor vehicle accident, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.), entered December 7, 1981, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict in his favor and ordered that the action be restored to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, plaintiffs’ motion is denied, the verdict is reinstated and the case is remitted to Trial Term for entry of a judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs’ version of how the automobile accident occurred was incongruent with defendant’s version. The jury found defendant’s story more believable. We find the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict (see Durante v Frishling, 81 AD2d 631; Winter v Rickman, 26 AD2d 842). Consequently, the jury’s verdict should not have been set aside. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Boyers, 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 and injury to property sustained in a motor vehicle accident, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.), entered December 7, 1981, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict in his favor and ordered that the action be restored to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, plaintiffs’ motion is denied, the verdict is reinstated and the case is remitted to Trial Term for entry of a judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs’ version of how the automobile accident occurred was incongruent with defendant’s version. The jury found defendant’s story more believable. We find the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict (see Durante v Frishling, 81 AD2d 631; Winter v Rickman, 26 AD2d 842). Consequently, the jury’s verdict should not have been set aside. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 925, 451 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dauria-v-raleigh-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack