Faisal v. Mayronne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Faisal v. Mayronne

22 A.D.3d 634, 801 N.Y.S.2d 920

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 634 (Faisal v. Mayronne) 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

Faisal v. Mayronne, 22 A.D.3d 634, 801 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered December 22, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant Ronald Mayronne and against him, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Determinations of the credibility of the witnesses are for the finder of fact, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see Sideris v Town of Huntington, 240 AD2d 652 [1997]). The verdict in the favor of the defendant, Ronald Mayronne, is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Adams, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Skelos, 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, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered December 22, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant Ronald Mayronne and against him, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Determinations of the credibility of the witnesses are for the finder of fact, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see Sideris v Town of Huntington, 240 AD2d 652 [1997]). The verdict in the favor of the defendant, Ronald Mayronne, is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Adams, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 634, 801 N.Y.S.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faisal-v-mayronne-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack