Glick v. M. A. Hittner & Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glick v. M. A. Hittner & Sons, Inc.

111 A.D.2d 150, 489 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51287

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

DecidedMay 6, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 150 (Glick v. M. A. Hittner & Sons, Inc.) 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

Glick v. M. A. Hittner & Sons, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 150, 489 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisheim, J.), entered August 4, 1983, which, upon a jury verdict, was in favor of defendants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

This action arose as the result of injuries sustained in a rear-end collision. There was conflicting testimony as to whether plaintiff had been stopped at a red light for several moments when he was hit, or whether he suddenly and without proper warning stopped his car, and defendant Locerto could not avoid a collision. In such a case, the issue of credibility is properly one for the jury (Sorokin v Food Fair Stores, 51 AD2d 592). Defendant Locerto cannot be held negligent as a matter of law because his vehicle hit plaintiff’s in the rear (see, Nikitas v Crailo Motors Corp., 17 AD2d 882). Viewing the evidence before the jury in the light most favorable to defendants, as we must, it cannot be said that a verdict in defendants’ favor could not be reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence (Matter of Kornblum Metals Co. v Intsel Corp., 38 NY2d 376). Therefore, we may not set the jury’s verdict aside as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence (cf. Pettersen v Curreri, 99 AD2d 774; Goehle v Town of Smithtown, 81 AD2d 607, affd 55 NY2d 995). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisheim, J.), entered August 4, 1983, which, upon a jury verdict, was in favor of defendants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

This action arose as the result of injuries sustained in a rear-end collision. There was conflicting testimony as to whether plaintiff had been stopped at a red light for several moments when he was hit, or whether he suddenly and without proper warning stopped his car, and defendant Locerto could not avoid a collision. In such a case, the issue of credibility is properly one for the jury (Sorokin v Food Fair Stores, 51 AD2d 592). Defendant Locerto cannot be held negligent as a matter of law because his vehicle hit plaintiff’s in the rear (see, Nikitas v Crailo Motors Corp., 17 AD2d 882). Viewing the evidence before the jury in the light most favorable to defendants, as we must, it cannot be said that a verdict in defendants’ favor could not be reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence (Matter of Kornblum Metals Co. v Intsel Corp., 38 NY2d 376). Therefore, we may not set the jury’s verdict aside as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence (cf. Pettersen v Curreri, 99 AD2d 774; Goehle v Town of Smithtown, 81 AD2d 607, affd 55 NY2d 995). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 150, 489 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glick-v-m-a-hittner-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack