DeVivo v. Perdue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeVivo v. Perdue

144 A.D.2d 624, 535 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12454

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 624 (DeVivo v. Perdue) 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

DeVivo v. Perdue, 144 A.D.2d 624, 535 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated April 8, 1987, which, after a jury trial, is in favor of the defendant, and (2) from an order of the same court dated May 13, 1987, which denied her posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

We conclude that the trial court acted properly in denying the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the defendant. Given the testimony adduced at trial, the jury [625]*625could have concluded, on a fair interpretation of the evidence, that the defendant exercised due care when he made his left turn into the intersection where the accident occurred (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141; McNierney v Zara Contr. Co., 125 AD2d 456; Bogorad v Fitzpatrick, 38 AD2d 923, affd 31 NY2d 984; Olson v Dougherty, 128 AD2d 920; cf., Kiernan v Edwards, 97 AD2d 750; Lester v Jolicofur, 120 AD2d 574). Lawrence, J. P., Spatt, Sullivan and Balletta, 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 (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated April 8, 1987, which, after a jury trial, is in favor of the defendant, and (2) from an order of the same court dated May 13, 1987, which denied her posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

We conclude that the trial court acted properly in denying the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the defendant. Given the testimony adduced at trial, the jury [625]*625could have concluded, on a fair interpretation of the evidence, that the defendant exercised due care when he made his left turn into the intersection where the accident occurred (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141; McNierney v Zara Contr. Co., 125 AD2d 456; Bogorad v Fitzpatrick, 38 AD2d 923, affd 31 NY2d 984; Olson v Dougherty, 128 AD2d 920; cf., Kiernan v Edwards, 97 AD2d 750; Lester v Jolicofur, 120 AD2d 574). Lawrence, J. P., Spatt, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 624, 535 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devivo-v-perdue-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack