Jecan v. Call

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jecan v. Call

266 A.D.2d 155, 698 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12356

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 155 (Jecan v. Call) 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

Jecan v. Call, 266 A.D.2d 155, 698 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered October 8, 1998, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury verdict in this personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Pena v New York City Tr. Auth., 185 AD2d 794), and, accordingly, plaintiffs motion to set it aside was properly denied. There was ample basis for the jury to conclude fairly that, although plaintiff had been in a serious accident and was unable to work for a time, he was not deserving of an award for pain and suffering. Plaintiffs claim of inconsistency of the verdict is unpreserved (Grzesiak v General Elec. Co., 68 NY2d 937). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered October 8, 1998, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury verdict in this personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Pena v New York City Tr. Auth., 185 AD2d 794), and, accordingly, plaintiffs motion to set it aside was properly denied. There was ample basis for the jury to conclude fairly that, although plaintiff had been in a serious accident and was unable to work for a time, he was not deserving of an award for pain and suffering. Plaintiffs claim of inconsistency of the verdict is unpreserved (Grzesiak v General Elec. Co., 68 NY2d 937). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 155, 698 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jecan-v-call-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack