Murphy v. Crecco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Crecco

255 A.D.2d 300, 679 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11564

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 300 (Murphy v. Crecco) 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

Murphy v. Crecco, 255 A.D.2d 300, 679 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated October 1, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, expert testimony with regard to the significance of the force of the impact between the two vehicles involved in the subject accident was not necessary since this is a matter within the ordinary knowledge and experience of the trier of the facts (see generally, De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307; Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 459). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, 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, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated October 1, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, expert testimony with regard to the significance of the force of the impact between the two vehicles involved in the subject accident was not necessary since this is a matter within the ordinary knowledge and experience of the trier of the facts (see generally, De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307; Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 459). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 300, 679 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-crecco-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack