Passiotti v. Zellman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Passiotti v. Zellman

136 A.D.2d 613, 523 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 383

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A.D.2d 613 (Passiotti v. Zellman) 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

Passiotti v. Zellman, 136 A.D.2d 613, 523 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered May 9, 1986, which is in favor of the defendant and against them, upon a jury verdict.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Isabelle Passiotti was injured in an automobile accident involving a car driven by her and a car driven by the defendant. As a result of this accident, Mrs. Passiotti experienced pain in her neck and left arm and hand. She testified that these injuries, and resultant pain, prevented her from performing her customary activities from the time of accident until trial. The crucial issue at trial was whether Mrs. Passiotti suffered a "serious injury” within the purview of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The jury found that her injuries did not meet the threshold.

Faced with conflicting testimony as to the nature of Mrs. Passiotti’s injuries, the jury was presented with a clear question of fact as to whether the injuries met the threshold for noneconomic loss within the purview of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Inasmuch as the jury’s finding, i.e., that Mrs. Passiotti did not sustain a serious injury, was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Coho v McNeil Constr. Co., 122 AD2d 103; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). We have examined the plaintiffs’ contention regarding the charge and find it to be unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Furthermore, we see no merit to the plaintiffs’ contention regarding the jury’s apportionment of comparative fault. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, 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, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered May 9, 1986, which is in favor of the defendant and against them, upon a jury verdict.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Isabelle Passiotti was injured in an automobile accident involving a car driven by her and a car driven by the defendant. As a result of this accident, Mrs. Passiotti experienced pain in her neck and left arm and hand. She testified that these injuries, and resultant pain, prevented her from performing her customary activities from the time of accident until trial. The crucial issue at trial was whether Mrs. Passiotti suffered a "serious injury” within the purview of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The jury found that her injuries did not meet the threshold.

Faced with conflicting testimony as to the nature of Mrs. Passiotti’s injuries, the jury was presented with a clear question of fact as to whether the injuries met the threshold for noneconomic loss within the purview of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Inasmuch as the jury’s finding, i.e., that Mrs. Passiotti did not sustain a serious injury, was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Coho v McNeil Constr. Co., 122 AD2d 103; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). We have examined the plaintiffs’ contention regarding the charge and find it to be unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Furthermore, we see no merit to the plaintiffs’ contention regarding the jury’s apportionment of comparative fault. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.2d 613, 523 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/passiotti-v-zellman-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack