Goddard v. Kerman Protection Systems, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goddard v. Kerman Protection Systems, Inc.

265 A.D.2d 376, 696 N.Y.2d 838, 696 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10221

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 376 (Goddard v. Kerman Protection Systems, 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

Goddard v. Kerman Protection Systems, Inc., 265 A.D.2d 376, 696 N.Y.2d 838, 696 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an ac[377]*377tion to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), entered June 1, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and should not be disturbed (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134).

The plaintiffs remaining argument is not preserved for appellate review and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an ac[377]*377tion to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), entered June 1, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and should not be disturbed (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134).

The plaintiffs remaining argument is not preserved for appellate review and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 376, 696 N.Y.2d 838, 696 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goddard-v-kerman-protection-systems-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack