Klein v. Lombardi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein v. Lombardi

2 A.D.3d 789, 769 N.Y.S.2d 407

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

DecidedDecember 29, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 789 (Klein v. Lombardi) 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

Klein v. Lombardi, 2 A.D.3d 789, 769 N.Y.S.2d 407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered May 2, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ argument, it cannot be said that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence. Thus, we conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see Lolik v Big v Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498 [1978]; Zavos v White, 234 AD2d 363 [1996]; Rice v Massalone, 160 AD2d 861, 862 [1990]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133 [1985]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered May 2, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ argument, it cannot be said that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence. Thus, we conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see Lolik v Big v Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498 [1978]; Zavos v White, 234 AD2d 363 [1996]; Rice v Massalone, 160 AD2d 861, 862 [1990]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133 [1985]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 789, 769 N.Y.S.2d 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-lombardi-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack