Faustin v. Aquatero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Faustin v. Aquatero

201 A.D.2d 453, 607 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 990

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 453 (Faustin v. Aquatero) 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

Faustin v. Aquatero, 201 A.D.2d 453, 607 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated July 5, 1991, which denied their motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and to grant a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

According to the defendant, a third vehicle hit his own vehicle, causing it to collide with the plaintiffs’ vehicle. We find that the jury’s verdict that the defendant failed to operate his vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner but that his negligence was not a proximate cause of the automobile accident was not inconsistent (PJI 2:72; see generally, Gralton v Oliver, 277 App Div 449, affd 302 NY 864). We further find that the jury verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman and Hart, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated July 5, 1991, which denied their motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and to grant a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

According to the defendant, a third vehicle hit his own vehicle, causing it to collide with the plaintiffs’ vehicle. We find that the jury’s verdict that the defendant failed to operate his vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner but that his negligence was not a proximate cause of the automobile accident was not inconsistent (PJI 2:72; see generally, Gralton v Oliver, 277 App Div 449, affd 302 NY 864). We further find that the jury verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 453, 607 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faustin-v-aquatero-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack