Hertel v. Wortley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hertel v. Wortley

51 A.D.2d 1014, 381 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11784

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1014 (Hertel v. Wortley) 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

Hertel v. Wortley, 51 A.D.2d 1014, 381 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 19, 1975, which is in favor of defendants, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The verdict in favor of defendants is not against the weight of the credible evidence. This verdict is to stand unimpaired since it may not be said that the evidence preponderated so greatly in plaintiffs’ favor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Pertofsky v Drucks, 16 AD2d 690). There [1015]*1015was no reversible error committed at the trial. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Christ and Titone, 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, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 19, 1975, which is in favor of defendants, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The verdict in favor of defendants is not against the weight of the credible evidence. This verdict is to stand unimpaired since it may not be said that the evidence preponderated so greatly in plaintiffs’ favor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Pertofsky v Drucks, 16 AD2d 690). There [1015]*1015was no reversible error committed at the trial. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Christ and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1014, 381 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hertel-v-wortley-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack