DeFreese v. Warwick Valley Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeFreese v. Warwick Valley Telephone Co.

134 A.D.2d 231, 520 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50426

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 231 (DeFreese v. Warwick Valley Telephone 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

DeFreese v. Warwick Valley Telephone Co., 134 A.D.2d 231, 520 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant New York Telephone Company appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ingrassia, J.), dated October 6, 1986, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly submitted the issue of the appellant’s negligence to the jury. The plaintiffs established a [232]*232prima facie case by producing evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the appellant departed from its usual practice and procedure (see, O’Neil v Port Auth., 111 AD2d 375, 376). The appellant’s contention that the verdict is not supported by the evidence must be rejected, since a review of the trial testimony reveals " 'permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational men to the conclusion reached by the jury’ ” (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 132, quoting from Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, 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, etc., the defendant New York Telephone Company appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ingrassia, J.), dated October 6, 1986, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly submitted the issue of the appellant’s negligence to the jury. The plaintiffs established a [232]*232prima facie case by producing evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the appellant departed from its usual practice and procedure (see, O’Neil v Port Auth., 111 AD2d 375, 376). The appellant’s contention that the verdict is not supported by the evidence must be rejected, since a review of the trial testimony reveals " 'permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational men to the conclusion reached by the jury’ ” (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 132, quoting from Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 231, 520 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/defreese-v-warwick-valley-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack