Emmons v. Country Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc.

111 A.D.2d 213, 489 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51356
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 13, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 213 (Emmons v. Country Lincoln Mercury Sales, 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
Emmons v. Country Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 213, 489 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), entered December 12, 1983, which was in favor of defendant Country Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc., upon a jury verdict.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

This action involved an automobile accident which occurred in New Jersey. When dealing with procedural matters, such as appealability, the burden of proof, and the weight and sufficiency of evidence, the law of the forum, in this instance, New York, governs (Able Cycle Engines v Allstate Ins. Co., 84 AD2d 140; Jackson v Coggan, 330 F Supp 1060). Therefore, in a case such as this, where there is conflicting testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the accident, since the jury’s verdict [214]*214is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, we will not set it aside (Pettersen v Curreri, 99 AD2d 774; Sorokin v Food Fair Stores, 51 AD2d 592).

As to plaintiffs’ contention that a portion of the trial court’s jury charge was erroneous, plaintiffs, having failed to object to that portion of the instruction on the ground raised on appeal, have not preserved the issue for review (CPLR 4110-b; Piro v Bowen, 76 AD2d 392). This is particularly true where, as here, plaintiffs requested a charge substantially similar to the one given (Rupert v Sellers, 50 NY2d 881). O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Burke v. Santoro
172 A.D.2d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Kwasny v. Feinberg
157 A.D.2d 396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
De Luca v. Kameros
130 A.D.2d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Zito v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.
122 A.D.2d 499 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 A.D.2d 213, 489 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emmons-v-country-lincoln-mercury-sales-inc-nyappdiv-1985.