Diakovasilis v. Bright & Sunny Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diakovasilis v. Bright & Sunny Corp.

265 A.D.2d 294, 696 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9639

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 294 (Diakovasilis v. Bright & Sunny 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

Diakovasilis v. Bright & Sunny Corp., 265 A.D.2d 294, 696 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), entered August 5, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability finding that the defendant was not at fault in the happening of the accident, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence photographs of the sidewalk without first redacting the alleged dates of processing imprinted on the back is without merit. The photographs were properly authenticated by testimony that they fairly and accurately represented the condition of the sidewalk on the date of the accident (see, Moore v Leaseway Transp. Corp., 49 NY2d 720). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Schmidt, 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 plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), entered August 5, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability finding that the defendant was not at fault in the happening of the accident, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence photographs of the sidewalk without first redacting the alleged dates of processing imprinted on the back is without merit. The photographs were properly authenticated by testimony that they fairly and accurately represented the condition of the sidewalk on the date of the accident (see, Moore v Leaseway Transp. Corp., 49 NY2d 720). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 294, 696 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diakovasilis-v-bright-sunny-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack