Garland v. Allison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garland v. Allison

271 A.D.2d 487, 705 N.Y.S.2d 682, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008

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

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 487 (Garland v. Allison) 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

Garland v. Allison, 271 A.D.2d 487, 705 N.Y.S.2d 682, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), entered November 17, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile which was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The defendant had taken his foot off the brake, and his vehicle rolled five feet forward into the plaintiff’s vehicle. At the close of all of the evidence, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. However, there was no damage to the defendant’s car, and only two indentations on the car in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The plaintiff’s medical expert relied upon the plaintiff’s subjective complaints in concluding that the injuries he allegedly suffered were proximately caused by the accident, and the plaintiff’s credibility was called into serious question during the trial (see, Pedone v B & B Equip. Co., 239 AD2d 397). In light of these facts, the verdict that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the accident is not against the weight of the evidence (see, Herring v Hayes, 135 AD2d 684; see also, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Feuerstein, 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, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), entered November 17, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile which was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The defendant had taken his foot off the brake, and his vehicle rolled five feet forward into the plaintiff’s vehicle. At the close of all of the evidence, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. However, there was no damage to the defendant’s car, and only two indentations on the car in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The plaintiff’s medical expert relied upon the plaintiff’s subjective complaints in concluding that the injuries he allegedly suffered were proximately caused by the accident, and the plaintiff’s credibility was called into serious question during the trial (see, Pedone v B & B Equip. Co., 239 AD2d 397). In light of these facts, the verdict that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the accident is not against the weight of the evidence (see, Herring v Hayes, 135 AD2d 684; see also, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 487, 705 N.Y.S.2d 682, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garland-v-allison-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack