Jara v. Bart Electric, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jara v. Bart Electric, Inc.

281 A.D.2d 517, 721 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2565

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 19, 2001·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated February 3, 1999, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant Burchetta F.A., Co., Inc., and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated April 26, 1999, as, upon the same jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant Morse Diesel, Inc., and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The weight to be accorded to the testimony of the parties’ experts was properly left to the jury (see, Gray v McParland, 255 AD2d 359). The verdict was based on a fair interpretation of all the evidence presented (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are unpreserved for ap[518] pellate review or without merit. Bracken, P. J., Ritter, Gold-stein 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated February 3, 1999, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant Burchetta F.A., Co., Inc., and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated April 26, 1999, as, upon the same jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant Morse Diesel, Inc., and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The weight to be accorded to the testimony of the parties’ experts was properly left to the jury (see, Gray v McParland, 255 AD2d 359). The verdict was based on a fair interpretation of all the evidence presented (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are unpreserved for ap[518] pellate review or without merit. Bracken, P. J., Ritter, Gold-stein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Jara v. Bart Electric, Inc., 281 A.D.2d 517, 721 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 517 (Jara v. Bart Electric, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related