Jorgensen v. New York Foundation for Senior Citizen Guardian Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jorgensen v. New York Foundation for Senior Citizen Guardian Services, Inc.

61 A.D.3d 612, 876 N.Y.S.2d 870

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

DecidedApril 30, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 612 (Jorgensen v. New York Foundation for Senior Citizen Guardian Services, Inc.) 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

Jorgensen v. New York Foundation for Senior Citizen Guardian Services, Inc., 61 A.D.3d 612, 876 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered October 27, 2008, upon a jury verdict in defendants’ favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In reaching its verdict that defendant James was not negligent, the jury could fairly have concluded that James could not have foreseen that an object hidden from view would fall and cause plaintiffs injury (see White v New York City Tr. Auth., 40 AD3d 297, 297 [2007]).

The court’s jury charge did not impermissibly narrow the scope of foreseeability but properly “incorporate [d] the factual contentions of the parties in respect of the legal principles charged” (Green v Downs, 27 NY2d 205, 208 [1970]). Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered October 27, 2008, upon a jury verdict in defendants’ favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In reaching its verdict that defendant James was not negligent, the jury could fairly have concluded that James could not have foreseen that an object hidden from view would fall and cause plaintiffs injury (see White v New York City Tr. Auth., 40 AD3d 297, 297 [2007]).

The court’s jury charge did not impermissibly narrow the scope of foreseeability but properly “incorporate [d] the factual contentions of the parties in respect of the legal principles charged” (Green v Downs, 27 NY2d 205, 208 [1970]). Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 612, 876 N.Y.S.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jorgensen-v-new-york-foundation-for-senior-citizen-guardian-services-inc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack