Rios v. Theodore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rios v. Theodore

213 A.D.2d 617, 624 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3248

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 617 (Rios v. Theodore) 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

Rios v. Theodore, 213 A.D.2d 617, 624 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Silverman, J.), dated May 12, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the principal sum of $950.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the determination of proximate cause is an issue for the jury (Nowlin v City of New York, 81 NY2d 81, 89; Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 312). In the present case, the jury’s determination that the defendant was negligent but that her conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident which resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Krausman, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Silverman, J.), dated May 12, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the principal sum of $950.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the determination of proximate cause is an issue for the jury (Nowlin v City of New York, 81 NY2d 81, 89; Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 312). In the present case, the jury’s determination that the defendant was negligent but that her conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident which resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 617, 624 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rios-v-theodore-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack