Errico v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Errico v. City of New York

279 A.D.2d 313, 718 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 97

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 313 (Errico v. City of New York) 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

Errico v. City of New York, 279 A.D.2d 313, 718 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 97 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie Payne, J.), entered August 31, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint as against defendants City of New York and Ralph Baez, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial evidence, fairly interpreted, permitted the jury’s verdict in favor of defendants-respondents and, accordingly, the trial court properly refused to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see, Johnson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 246 AD2d 88, 94, lv denied 92 NY2d 816). The testimony, as credited by the jury, established that defendant Baez was proceeding into the intersection at a prudent rate of speed and with the green light when the collision occurred. The court’s charge as to the issue of negligence was proper and, accordingly, provides no ground to disturb the jury’s findings.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie Payne, J.), entered August 31, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint as against defendants City of New York and Ralph Baez, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial evidence, fairly interpreted, permitted the jury’s verdict in favor of defendants-respondents and, accordingly, the trial court properly refused to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see, Johnson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 246 AD2d 88, 94, lv denied 92 NY2d 816). The testimony, as credited by the jury, established that defendant Baez was proceeding into the intersection at a prudent rate of speed and with the green light when the collision occurred. The court’s charge as to the issue of negligence was proper and, accordingly, provides no ground to disturb the jury’s findings.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 313, 718 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/errico-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack