Paternostro v. Schillaci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paternostro v. Schillaci

32 A.D.2d 790, 302 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3800

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

DecidedJune 9, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 790 (Paternostro v. Schillaci) 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

Paternostro v. Schillaci, 32 A.D.2d 790, 302 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries incurred by .plaintiff while a passenger in a motor vehicle owned and operated by appellant, the appeal is from an order of the ¡Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 9, 1968, which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of appellant upon a trial of the issues of liability only and to direct a verdict in favor of plaintiff on those issues and (2) set the ease down for an assessment of damages. Order reversed, with costs, plaintiff’s motion demed and jury verdict reinstated. No claim is made that errors of law occurred at the trial or that prejudicial conduct improperly influenced the verdict. Under these circumstances, and .on the proof adduced, which indicated an issue of fact as to the negligence of appellant, it may not be held that the evidence preponderates so greatly in favor of plaintiff as to establish ttiaf the jury's verdict for appellant “could not have .been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 539, 544; Herman v. Hubert, 12 A D 2d 767). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, 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 incurred by .plaintiff while a passenger in a motor vehicle owned and operated by appellant, the appeal is from an order of the ¡Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 9, 1968, which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of appellant upon a trial of the issues of liability only and to direct a verdict in favor of plaintiff on those issues and (2) set the ease down for an assessment of damages. Order reversed, with costs, plaintiff’s motion demed and jury verdict reinstated. No claim is made that errors of law occurred at the trial or that prejudicial conduct improperly influenced the verdict. Under these circumstances, and .on the proof adduced, which indicated an issue of fact as to the negligence of appellant, it may not be held that the evidence preponderates so greatly in favor of plaintiff as to establish ttiaf the jury's verdict for appellant “could not have .been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 539, 544; Herman v. Hubert, 12 A D 2d 767). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur. •

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 790, 302 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paternostro-v-schillaci-nyappdiv-1969.