Pajak v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pajak v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc.

301 A.D.2d 639, 753 N.Y.S.2d 877

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 639 (Pajak v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc.) 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

Pajak v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc., 301 A.D.2d 639, 753 N.Y.S.2d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., [640]*640the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), entered December 27, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict and for a new trial on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the jury verdict should not be disturbed, since it was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, 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, etc., [640]*640the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), entered December 27, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict and for a new trial on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the jury verdict should not be disturbed, since it was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 639, 753 N.Y.S.2d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pajak-v-big-v-supermarkets-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack