Miller v. Almadovar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Almadovar

6 A.D.3d 405, 774 N.Y.S.2d 380

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

DecidedApril 5, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 405 (Miller v. Almadovar) 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

Miller v. Almadovar, 6 A.D.3d 405, 774 N.Y.S.2d 380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Schneier, J.), dated May 9, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $80,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs proof was sufficient to show that her injuries were caused by the motor vehicle accident with the defendants, which occurred on July 19, 1995 (see Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 459, 461 [1979]; People v Bethune, 105 AD2d 262 [1984]; cf. Andre v Seem, 234 AD2d 325 [1996]). Thus, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was based on legally sufficient evidence, as the evidence presented at the trial provided a rational basis for the jury determination (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.E, Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, 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 defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Schneier, J.), dated May 9, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $80,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs proof was sufficient to show that her injuries were caused by the motor vehicle accident with the defendants, which occurred on July 19, 1995 (see Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 459, 461 [1979]; People v Bethune, 105 AD2d 262 [1984]; cf. Andre v Seem, 234 AD2d 325 [1996]). Thus, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was based on legally sufficient evidence, as the evidence presented at the trial provided a rational basis for the jury determination (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.E, Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 405, 774 N.Y.S.2d 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-almadovar-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack