Reed v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reed v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital

308 A.D.2d 388, 764 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9689

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 308 A.D.2d 388 (Reed v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital) 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

Reed v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital, 308 A.D.2d 388, 764 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lottie Wilkins, J.), entered May 1, 2002, upon a jury verdict in defendants’ favor, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion, at the close of defendants’ case, for a directed verdict on his cause of action for false imprisonment. The record discloses that the trial evidence raised numerous issues of fact and witness credibility with respect to defendants’ claim of legal justification, which were properly left for the jury (see White v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 151 AD2d 859 [1989]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find [389]*389them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lottie Wilkins, J.), entered May 1, 2002, upon a jury verdict in defendants’ favor, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion, at the close of defendants’ case, for a directed verdict on his cause of action for false imprisonment. The record discloses that the trial evidence raised numerous issues of fact and witness credibility with respect to defendants’ claim of legal justification, which were properly left for the jury (see White v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 151 AD2d 859 [1989]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find [389]*389them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 388, 764 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-new-york-presbyterian-hospital-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack