Disla v. DHL Airways, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Disla v. DHL Airways, Inc.

219 A.D.2d 612, 631 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9304

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 612 (Disla v. DHL Airways, 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

Disla v. DHL Airways, Inc., 219 A.D.2d 612, 631 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered November 18, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the respondents’ negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the respondents.

[613]*613Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s claim regarding the inconsistency of the verdict is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Gross v Fontano, 206 AD2d 505). In any event, the verdict was not inconsistent (see, Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 AD2d 525).

Further, the jury’s findings were not against the weight of the evidence, as they were supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Briccio v Disbrow, 212 AD2d 565; Moskowitz v Israel, 209 AD2d 676). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Ritter, 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 appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered November 18, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the respondents’ negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the respondents.

[613]*613Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s claim regarding the inconsistency of the verdict is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Gross v Fontano, 206 AD2d 505). In any event, the verdict was not inconsistent (see, Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 AD2d 525).

Further, the jury’s findings were not against the weight of the evidence, as they were supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Briccio v Disbrow, 212 AD2d 565; Moskowitz v Israel, 209 AD2d 676). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 612, 631 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disla-v-dhl-airways-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack