Meling v. Chatsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meling v. Chatsky

19 A.D.3d 244, 797 N.Y.S.2d 753, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6799

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

DecidedJune 21, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 244 (Meling v. Chatsky) 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

Meling v. Chatsky, 19 A.D.3d 244, 797 N.Y.S.2d 753, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J., and a jury), entered March 24, 2003, in favor of defendants and against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury’s finding that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350-351 [2002]) is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004]), including the testimony of her own physician. The lay testimony challenged by plaintiff was properly admitted as relevant to her physical condition and credibility. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Ellerin and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J., and a jury), entered March 24, 2003, in favor of defendants and against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury’s finding that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 350-351 [2002]) is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004]), including the testimony of her own physician. The lay testimony challenged by plaintiff was properly admitted as relevant to her physical condition and credibility. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Ellerin and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 244, 797 N.Y.S.2d 753, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meling-v-chatsky-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack