Loughran v. Town of Eastchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loughran v. Town of Eastchester

299 A.D.2d 329, 749 N.Y.S.2d 172, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10488

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 4, 2002·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered September 13, 2001, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that the court’s conclusion could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495; Dimmitt & Owens Fin. v Dependable Indus. Supply Co., 293 AD2d 446; Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Thrift Assns. Serv. Corp., 237 AD2d 475). Here, the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that there was no defective condition on the sidewalk. As the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, we decline to disturb it.

In light of our determination, we need not consider whether the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, 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, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered September 13, 2001, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that the court’s conclusion could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495; Dimmitt & Owens Fin. v Dependable Indus. Supply Co., 293 AD2d 446; Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Thrift Assns. Serv. Corp., 237 AD2d 475). Here, the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that there was no defective condition on the sidewalk. As the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, we decline to disturb it.

In light of our determination, we need not consider whether the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Loughran v. Town of Eastchester, 299 A.D.2d 329, 749 N.Y.S.2d 172, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

299 A.D.2d 329 (Loughran v. Town of Eastchester) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related