Parekh v. Avis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parekh v. Avis

271 A.D.2d 666, 707 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4531

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 24, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), entered May 6, 1999, which, upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in their favor as a matter of law, and upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict on the issue of whether the injured plaintiff had suffered a serious injury, “given the conflicting medical evidence as to whether there was a causal connection between the accident and plaintiffs alleged permanent [injuries]” (Rosabella v Fanelli, 225 AD2d 1007, 1008; see, Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556).

Additionally, the verdict in favor of the defendant was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, 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., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), entered May 6, 1999, which, upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in their favor as a matter of law, and upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict on the issue of whether the injured plaintiff had suffered a serious injury, “given the conflicting medical evidence as to whether there was a causal connection between the accident and plaintiffs alleged permanent [injuries]” (Rosabella v Fanelli, 225 AD2d 1007, 1008; see, Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556).

Additionally, the verdict in favor of the defendant was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Parekh v. Avis, 271 A.D.2d 666, 707 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

271 A.D.2d 666 (Parekh v. Avis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related