Mioni v. Zeng

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mioni v. Zeng

52 A.D.2d 786, 383 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12570

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

DecidedMay 11, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 786 (Mioni v. Zeng) 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

Mioni v. Zeng, 52 A.D.2d 786, 383 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Interlocutory judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered in this personal injury action, on February 18, 1975, in favor of plaintiff and third-party defendant, after trial before Fusco, J., and a jury, unanimously affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellant one bill of $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. An examination of the record discloses no significant error. Questions of fact were raised by the evidence adduced and we find no reason to interfere with the verdict of the jury. The issues of the negligence of the defendant-appellant and the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff-respondent were properly for the jury’s consideration and its determination should stand. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Capozzoli, Lane and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Interlocutory judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered in this personal injury action, on February 18, 1975, in favor of plaintiff and third-party defendant, after trial before Fusco, J., and a jury, unanimously affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellant one bill of $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. An examination of the record discloses no significant error. Questions of fact were raised by the evidence adduced and we find no reason to interfere with the verdict of the jury. The issues of the negligence of the defendant-appellant and the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff-respondent were properly for the jury’s consideration and its determination should stand. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Capozzoli, Lane and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 786, 383 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mioni-v-zeng-nyappdiv-1976.