Mitchell v. Jewell Davis Cleaning Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitchell v. Jewell Davis Cleaning Corp.

150 A.D.2d 656, 543 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6927

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

DecidedMay 22, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A.D.2d 656 (Mitchell v. Jewell Davis Cleaning Corp.) 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

Mitchell v. Jewell Davis Cleaning Corp., 150 A.D.2d 656, 543 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), entered December 2, 1987, which, upon a jury verdict, on the issue of liability in favor of the defendants, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s determination that the defendants were not negligent was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and, hence, will not be disturbed (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Moreover, the plaintiffs’ challenges to certain of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and portions of the jury instructions are without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Eiber and Spatt, 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, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), entered December 2, 1987, which, upon a jury verdict, on the issue of liability in favor of the defendants, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s determination that the defendants were not negligent was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and, hence, will not be disturbed (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Moreover, the plaintiffs’ challenges to certain of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and portions of the jury instructions are without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 656, 543 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-jewell-davis-cleaning-corp-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack