Pringle v. American Handling Equipment Co.

101 A.D.2d 830, 475 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18497

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), entered February 25,1983, as, upon a jury verdict, was in favor of defendant American Handling Equipment Company of New York, Inc., on the issue of damages. K Judgment reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the facts, and a [831]*831new trial granted as between plaintiff and American Handling Equipment Company of New York, Inc., on the issue of damages, with costs to abide the event. H The proof at trial was uncontroverted that plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of the accident in 1975. Indeed, American Handling’s own medical expert testified that plaintiff suffered torn ligaments as a result of that incident. Moreover, defense counsel conceded in his opening statement and summation that plaintiff suffered “some injury” as a result of the 1975 accident. Thus, the jury’s verdict that plaintiff failed to establish his injuries is clearly against the weight of the evidence (Goldberg v Elkorn Co., 47 AD2d 539). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pringle v. American Handling Equipment Co., 101 A.D.2d 830, 475 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

101 A.D.2d 830 (Pringle v. American Handling Equipment Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goldberg v. Elkom Co.
47 A.D.2d 539 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)