David v. EZ Rate Rental Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

David v. EZ Rate Rental Corp.

298 A.D.2d 353, 751 N.Y.S.2d 376, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9435

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 353 (David v. EZ Rate Rental Corp.) 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

David v. EZ Rate Rental Corp., 298 A.D.2d 353, 751 N.Y.S.2d 376, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Akilov David appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Geller, J.), entered October 30, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted by him.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the jury verdict finding that he did not sustain a serious injury, as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), was not against the weight of the credible evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744; Scicutella v Town of Hempstead, 287 AD2d 611). Here, the jury was presented with conflicting opinions of medical experts, and we refuse to disturb its determination with respect to the credibility of those experts (see Kalpakis v County of Nassau, 289 AD2d 453; Moreno v Chemtob, 271 AD2d 585; Gray v McParland, 255 AD2d 359). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, 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, the plaintiff Akilov David appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Geller, J.), entered October 30, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted by him.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the jury verdict finding that he did not sustain a serious injury, as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), was not against the weight of the credible evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744; Scicutella v Town of Hempstead, 287 AD2d 611). Here, the jury was presented with conflicting opinions of medical experts, and we refuse to disturb its determination with respect to the credibility of those experts (see Kalpakis v County of Nassau, 289 AD2d 453; Moreno v Chemtob, 271 AD2d 585; Gray v McParland, 255 AD2d 359). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 353, 751 N.Y.S.2d 376, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-ez-rate-rental-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack