Jenkins v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenkins v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

140 A.D.3d 435, 31 N.Y.S.3d 866

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

DecidedJune 7, 2016

Docket1371 154540/12

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 435 (Jenkins v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) 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

Jenkins v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 140 A.D.3d 435, 31 N.Y.S.3d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered on or about May 14, 2015, which, after a trial in which a jury returned a verdict in defendant’s favor, granted plaintiff’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and ordered a new trial on damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Given the inconsistency of plaintiff’s testimony, and the deficiencies in his proof, the fact that he was the only witness to testify, in this “hit and run” accident, did not require a liability finding in his favor (see Barreto v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 38 AD3d 359, 360 [1st Dept 2007]; Sowell v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 16 AD3d 282 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered on or about May 14, 2015, which, after a trial in which a jury returned a verdict in defendant’s favor, granted plaintiff’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and ordered a new trial on damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Given the inconsistency of plaintiff’s testimony, and the deficiencies in his proof, the fact that he was the only witness to testify, in this “hit and run” accident, did not require a liability finding in his favor (see Barreto v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 38 AD3d 359, 360 [1st Dept 2007]; Sowell v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 16 AD3d 282 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 435, 31 N.Y.S.3d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack