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

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 666 (Parekh v. Avis) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 666, 707 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parekh-v-avis-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack