Ross v. Axa Financial, Inc.
88 A.D.3d 626, 931 N.Y.2d 504
Opinion
The court properly admitted the unredacted “aided report” because there was sufficient evidence that plaintiff was the source of the information therein, including the location of the accident (see Martinez v New York City Tr. Auth., 41 AD3d 174, 175 [2007]; see also McDermott v Barker, 20 AD2d 546 [1963]). In light of this and the other evidence presented at trial, the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Concur— Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ross v. Axa Financial, Inc., 88 A.D.3d 626, 931 N.Y.2d 504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
88 A.D.3d 626 (Ross v. Axa Financial, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Martinez v. New York City Transit Authority
41 A.D.3d 174 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
McDermott v. Barker
20 A.D.2d 546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)