Lichtenstein v. Bauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lichtenstein v. Bauer

203 A.D.2d 89, 609 N.Y.S.2d 615

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 12, 1994·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Kings County (Jules Spodek, J.), entered on or about February 15, 1991, in favor of defendant William Bauer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A jury verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside unless the jury could not have reached the verdict upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Patti v Fenimore, 181 AD2d 869, 871; Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, lv denied 70 NY2d 602). Here, there was a conflict in expert testimony between plaintiff’s expert, who testified that plaintiff’s pain was the result of a herniated disc caused by trauma when her car was struck by defendant’s vehicle, and defendants’ experts, who were of the view that plaintiff’s back condition was a normally degenerative non-pain producing bulging disc and that her back pain was caused by kidney stones. This created a question of credibility properly left to the jury (see, Syrkett v Burden, 176 AD2d 938). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Kings County (Jules Spodek, J.), entered on or about February 15, 1991, in favor of defendant William Bauer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A jury verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside unless the jury could not have reached the verdict upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Patti v Fenimore, 181 AD2d 869, 871; Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, lv denied 70 NY2d 602). Here, there was a conflict in expert testimony between plaintiff’s expert, who testified that plaintiff’s pain was the result of a herniated disc caused by trauma when her car was struck by defendant’s vehicle, and defendants’ experts, who were of the view that plaintiff’s back condition was a normally degenerative non-pain producing bulging disc and that her back pain was caused by kidney stones. This created a question of credibility properly left to the jury (see, Syrkett v Burden, 176 AD2d 938). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Lichtenstein v. Bauer, 203 A.D.2d 89, 609 N.Y.S.2d 615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

203 A.D.2d 89 (Lichtenstein v. Bauer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related