McDonald v. We're Associates Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McDonald v. We're Associates Co.

290 A.D.2d 422, 736 N.Y.S.2d 82, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 337

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 422 (McDonald v. We're Associates Co.) 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

McDonald v. We're Associates Co., 290 A.D.2d 422, 736 N.Y.S.2d 82, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), entered April 5, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict determining that the accident was not a proximate cause of [423]*423her injuries, and upon the denial of her motion to set aside the verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that a jury verdict will not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Mazza v O’Keefe, 275 AD2d 696; Senno v Picture Cars E., 275 AD2d 315; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). In view of the conflicting expert opinion as to whether the plaintiff sustained a disc injury as a result of the subject accident, and the evidence that the plaintiff had suffered back injuries in two prior accidents, the jury’s determination that the subject accident was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Senno v Picture Cars E., supra; Syrkett v Burden, 176 AD2d 938; Zapata v Dagostino, 265 AD2d 324; Herring v Hayes, 135 AD2d 684). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Friedmann and Schmidt, 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, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), entered April 5, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict determining that the accident was not a proximate cause of [423]*423her injuries, and upon the denial of her motion to set aside the verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that a jury verdict will not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Mazza v O’Keefe, 275 AD2d 696; Senno v Picture Cars E., 275 AD2d 315; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). In view of the conflicting expert opinion as to whether the plaintiff sustained a disc injury as a result of the subject accident, and the evidence that the plaintiff had suffered back injuries in two prior accidents, the jury’s determination that the subject accident was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Senno v Picture Cars E., supra; Syrkett v Burden, 176 AD2d 938; Zapata v Dagostino, 265 AD2d 324; Herring v Hayes, 135 AD2d 684). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 422, 736 N.Y.S.2d 82, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-were-associates-co-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack