Irwin v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Irwin v. Allstate Insurance

277 A.D.2d 285, 715 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11779

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 285 (Irwin v. Allstate Insurance) 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

Irwin v. Allstate Insurance, 277 A.D.2d 285, 715 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lisa, J.), entered November 24, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendants 60% at fault in the happening of the accident and the plaintiff 40% at fault, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $80,197.80 (60% of $133,663).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence was legally sufficient to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Cox v Catsimatidis, 247 AD2d 506). The jury rendered a verdict that a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries was the removal, by the defendant Arnold Hecht, of an eight-inch by eight-inch portion of carpet from the floor abutting the door saddle in front of the bedroom door of the plaintiff’s aunt. Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, that finding was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, supra; Cox v Catsimatidis, supra; see also, Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44).

[286]*286The appellants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Goldstein, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lisa, J.), entered November 24, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendants 60% at fault in the happening of the accident and the plaintiff 40% at fault, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $80,197.80 (60% of $133,663).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence was legally sufficient to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Cox v Catsimatidis, 247 AD2d 506). The jury rendered a verdict that a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries was the removal, by the defendant Arnold Hecht, of an eight-inch by eight-inch portion of carpet from the floor abutting the door saddle in front of the bedroom door of the plaintiff’s aunt. Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, that finding was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, supra; Cox v Catsimatidis, supra; see also, Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44).

[286]*286The appellants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Goldstein, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 285, 715 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irwin-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack