Hardwick v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hardwick v. State

90 A.D.3d 540, 935 N.Y.2d 22

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 540 (Hardwick v. State) 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

Hardwick v. State, 90 A.D.3d 540, 935 N.Y.2d 22 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Since the trial court’s apportionment of liability was based on a credibility determination, our review is limited to whether the court arrived at its conclusion by means of a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Green v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 74 AD3d 570, 571-573 [2010, Saxe, J., concurring]; see also Watts v State of New York, 25 AD3d 324 [2006]). The record supports the finding that claimant bears some responsibility for his injuries. However, it does not support the finding that the dangerous condition was open and obvious. Thus, we modify the apportionment accordingly. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny and Román, JJ.

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

Since the trial court’s apportionment of liability was based on a credibility determination, our review is limited to whether the court arrived at its conclusion by means of a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Green v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 74 AD3d 570, 571-573 [2010, Saxe, J., concurring]; see also Watts v State of New York, 25 AD3d 324 [2006]). The record supports the finding that claimant bears some responsibility for his injuries. However, it does not support the finding that the dangerous condition was open and obvious. Thus, we modify the apportionment accordingly. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 540, 935 N.Y.2d 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardwick-v-state-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack