Oliver v. Donnelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oliver v. Donnelly

222 A.D.2d 423, 635 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12570

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 423 (Oliver v. Donnelly) 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

Oliver v. Donnelly, 222 A.D.2d 423, 635 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), entered July 19, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

There was no evidence adduced at trial that would support a [424]*424finding that the defendant violated either Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a) or Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (e). Thus, the trial court’s refusal to include those sections in the charge to the jury was proper (see, Hardy v Sicuranza, 133 AD2d 138; Gamar v Gamar, 114 AD2d 487; Wilmot v City of New York, 73 AD2d 201).

The jury’s determination that the defendant’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the automobile accident was supported by "a fair interpretation of the evidence” (Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Hart, 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 (Rosenzweig, J.), entered July 19, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

There was no evidence adduced at trial that would support a [424]*424finding that the defendant violated either Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a) or Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (e). Thus, the trial court’s refusal to include those sections in the charge to the jury was proper (see, Hardy v Sicuranza, 133 AD2d 138; Gamar v Gamar, 114 AD2d 487; Wilmot v City of New York, 73 AD2d 201).

The jury’s determination that the defendant’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the automobile accident was supported by "a fair interpretation of the evidence” (Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 423, 635 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-v-donnelly-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack