Ho v. Stein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ho v. Stein

289 A.D.2d 44, 734 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11720

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 44 (Ho v. Stein) 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

Ho v. Stein, 289 A.D.2d 44, 734 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered October 20, 2000, which denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We perceive no basis to disturb the trial court’s denial of a new trial, particularly in view of the court’s superior opportunity to observe and evaluate the trial testimony (see, Annunziata v Colasanti, 126 AD2d 75, 80). Indeed, it is plain that “the jury, fairly interpreting the evidence, could have found that the [car] driver [defendant] did not violate the Vehicle and Traffic Law,” and therefore, “a new trial would not be appropriate” (see, Karoon v New York City Tr. Auth., 286 AD2d 648, 649). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments to the fullest extent possible on the limited appellate record filed by plaintiff and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered October 20, 2000, which denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We perceive no basis to disturb the trial court’s denial of a new trial, particularly in view of the court’s superior opportunity to observe and evaluate the trial testimony (see, Annunziata v Colasanti, 126 AD2d 75, 80). Indeed, it is plain that “the jury, fairly interpreting the evidence, could have found that the [car] driver [defendant] did not violate the Vehicle and Traffic Law,” and therefore, “a new trial would not be appropriate” (see, Karoon v New York City Tr. Auth., 286 AD2d 648, 649). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments to the fullest extent possible on the limited appellate record filed by plaintiff and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 44, 734 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ho-v-stein-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack