Roth v. Ettinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roth v. Ettinger

251 A.D.2d 644, 676 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7943

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

DecidedJune 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 644 (Roth v. Ettinger) 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

Roth v. Ettinger, 251 A.D.2d 644, 676 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), entered September 9, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s verdict, which found that the defendants were negligent, but that their negligence was not a proximate cause of the damages alleged, is not inconsistent and is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Keegan v Prout, 215 AD2d 629; see also, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), entered September 9, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s verdict, which found that the defendants were negligent, but that their negligence was not a proximate cause of the damages alleged, is not inconsistent and is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Keegan v Prout, 215 AD2d 629; see also, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 644, 676 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-ettinger-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack