Matos v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matos v. Goldstein

270 A.D.2d 400, 705 N.Y.S.2d 252, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2942

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 400 (Matos v. Goldstein) 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

Matos v. Goldstein, 270 A.D.2d 400, 705 N.Y.S.2d 252, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), entered October 22, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict and the denial of their posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, is in favor of the defendants and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention on appeal, the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Gomez v Park Donuts, 249 AD2d 266; Miglino v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 243 AD2d 451; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Feuerstein, 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 (Rappaport, J.), entered October 22, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict and the denial of their posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, is in favor of the defendants and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention on appeal, the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Gomez v Park Donuts, 249 AD2d 266; Miglino v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 243 AD2d 451; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 400, 705 N.Y.S.2d 252, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matos-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack