DeSimone v. Royal GM, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeSimone v. Royal GM, Inc.

49 A.D.3d 490, 856 N.Y.2d 628

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 490 (DeSimone v. Royal GM, Inc.) 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

DeSimone v. Royal GM, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 490, 856 N.Y.2d 628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

By failing to move for a directed verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401 on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a “serious injury” under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendants implicitly conceded that the issue was for the trier of fact (see [491]*491Miller v Miller, 68 NY2d 871, 873 [1986]; Hurley v Cavitolo, 239 AD2d 559 [1997]). Furthermore, the jury verdict finding, inter alia, that the plaintiff sustained a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence, as it could have been reached on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Bendersky v M & O Enters. Corp., 299 AD2d 434, 435 [2002]). Lastly, the jury award of damages for the plaintiffs rotator cuff injury and herniated cervical disc did not deviate from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501; Severin v Benenati, 251 AD2d 316, 317 [1998]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By failing to move for a directed verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401 on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a “serious injury” under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the defendants implicitly conceded that the issue was for the trier of fact (see [491]*491Miller v Miller, 68 NY2d 871, 873 [1986]; Hurley v Cavitolo, 239 AD2d 559 [1997]). Furthermore, the jury verdict finding, inter alia, that the plaintiff sustained a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence, as it could have been reached on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Bendersky v M & O Enters. Corp., 299 AD2d 434, 435 [2002]). Lastly, the jury award of damages for the plaintiffs rotator cuff injury and herniated cervical disc did not deviate from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501; Severin v Benenati, 251 AD2d 316, 317 [1998]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 490, 856 N.Y.2d 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desimone-v-royal-gm-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack