Loso v. LaFroscia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loso v. LaFroscia

236 A.D.2d 594, 654 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1537

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 594 (Loso v. LaFroscia) 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

Loso v. LaFroscia, 236 A.D.2d 594, 654 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered November 17, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff had not suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102, is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The weight to be afforded to the conflicting testimony of experts is a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury (see, Stringile v Rothman, 142 AD2d 637, 640). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the jury’s verdict was amply supported by the evidence adduced at the trial (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Luciano, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered November 17, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff had not suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102, is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The weight to be afforded to the conflicting testimony of experts is a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury (see, Stringile v Rothman, 142 AD2d 637, 640). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the jury’s verdict was amply supported by the evidence adduced at the trial (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 594, 654 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loso-v-lafroscia-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack