East v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

East v. Thomas

222 A.D.2d 646, 636 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13913

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 646 (East v. Thomas) 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

East v. Thomas, 222 A.D.2d 646, 636 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), entered June 10, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendants not at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the verdict in favor of the defendants should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence since it was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Buckenberger v Clark Constr. Corp., 208 AD2d 790; DiLauro v Hochman, 189 AD2d 795).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Hart and Krausman, 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 plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), entered June 10, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendants not at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the verdict in favor of the defendants should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence since it was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Buckenberger v Clark Constr. Corp., 208 AD2d 790; DiLauro v Hochman, 189 AD2d 795).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 646, 636 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-v-thomas-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack