Gilliam v. Vasilis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gilliam v. Vasilis

225 A.D.2d 509, 639 N.Y.2d 804, 639 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3256

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 509 (Gilliam v. Vasilis) 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

Gilliam v. Vasilis, 225 A.D.2d 509, 639 N.Y.2d 804, 639 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The testimony of plaintiff and one of the eyewitnesses to the accident provided legally sufficient evidence for the finding that defendant was 100% responsible for the accident, and inconsistencies in plaintiff’s testimony and conflicting testimony as to whether plaintiff looked both ways and had the traffic light in her favor before crossing the street do not render the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 132-137). The trial court properly refused to charge the emergency doctrine since defendant driver’s own account of the accident failed to support that theory (see, Aldrich v Madison Taxi, 49 AD2d 1012; cf., Waugh v Johns, 206 AD2d 525). The award, as reduced, does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

The testimony of plaintiff and one of the eyewitnesses to the accident provided legally sufficient evidence for the finding that defendant was 100% responsible for the accident, and inconsistencies in plaintiff’s testimony and conflicting testimony as to whether plaintiff looked both ways and had the traffic light in her favor before crossing the street do not render the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 132-137). The trial court properly refused to charge the emergency doctrine since defendant driver’s own account of the accident failed to support that theory (see, Aldrich v Madison Taxi, 49 AD2d 1012; cf., Waugh v Johns, 206 AD2d 525). The award, as reduced, does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 509, 639 N.Y.2d 804, 639 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilliam-v-vasilis-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack