Schock v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schock v. State

168 A.D.2d 491, 562 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15328

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1990

DocketClaim No. 73012

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 491 (Schock v. State) 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

Schock v. State, 168 A.D.2d 491, 562 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Blinder, J.), dated May 1, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant Sylvia Schock was allegedly caused to fall on a raised portion of the sidewalk leading from Commonwealth Boulevard to the entrance of the Queens Children’s Psychiatric Center, a State-owned facility. Thereafter, the claimants brought this claim against the State. After a nonjury trial, the Court of Claims dismissed the claim for failure to establish that the sidewalk was owned by the State. The court’s written decision was based upon factual conclusions arrived at by weighing all the evidence. This court will not disturb the Court of Claims determination unless it was against the weight of the evidence (see, Ahnert v State of New York, 127 AD2d 927), and due deference must be accorded the Trial Judge’s determination (see, Cordts v State of New York, 125 AD2d 746, 750). The only evidence produced by the claimants as to the ownership of the sidewalk was circumstantial and inconclusive. Therefore, the court’s determination should not be disturbed. Mangano, P. J., Fiber, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Blinder, J.), dated May 1, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant Sylvia Schock was allegedly caused to fall on a raised portion of the sidewalk leading from Commonwealth Boulevard to the entrance of the Queens Children’s Psychiatric Center, a State-owned facility. Thereafter, the claimants brought this claim against the State. After a nonjury trial, the Court of Claims dismissed the claim for failure to establish that the sidewalk was owned by the State. The court’s written decision was based upon factual conclusions arrived at by weighing all the evidence. This court will not disturb the Court of Claims determination unless it was against the weight of the evidence (see, Ahnert v State of New York, 127 AD2d 927), and due deference must be accorded the Trial Judge’s determination (see, Cordts v State of New York, 125 AD2d 746, 750). The only evidence produced by the claimants as to the ownership of the sidewalk was circumstantial and inconclusive. Therefore, the court’s determination should not be disturbed. Mangano, P. J., Fiber, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 491, 562 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schock-v-state-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack