Roache v. City of Mount Vernon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roache v. City of Mount Vernon

160 A.D.2d 863, 555 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480

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

DecidedApril 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 863 (Roache v. City of Mount Vernon) 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

Roache v. City of Mount Vernon, 160 A.D.2d 863, 555 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated October 3, 1988, which, after a hearing, granted the motion of the Mount Vernon Housing Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and the cross claims against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"The Trial Judge’s assessment of the credibility of the witness’ testimony is to be afforded great weight” (Matter of Liccione v John H., 65 NY2d 826, 827). Moreover, where, as here, the physical characteristics of the witnesses were a critical issue, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, was in the best position to evaluate the evidence, and we perceive no basis in the record upon which to disturb its findings. Rubin, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Miller, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated October 3, 1988, which, after a hearing, granted the motion of the Mount Vernon Housing Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it and the cross claims against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"The Trial Judge’s assessment of the credibility of the witness’ testimony is to be afforded great weight” (Matter of Liccione v John H., 65 NY2d 826, 827). Moreover, where, as here, the physical characteristics of the witnesses were a critical issue, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, was in the best position to evaluate the evidence, and we perceive no basis in the record upon which to disturb its findings. Rubin, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 863, 555 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roache-v-city-of-mount-vernon-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack