Pringle v. American Handling Equipment Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pringle v. American Handling Equipment Co.

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

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

DecidedMay 14, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.2d 830 (Pringle v. American Handling Equipment Co.) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 830, 475 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pringle-v-american-handling-equipment-co-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack