Serpa v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Serpa v. City of New York

66 A.D.3d 987, 886 N.Y.S.2d 811

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.3d 987 (Serpa v. City of New York) 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

Serpa v. City of New York, 66 A.D.3d 987, 886 N.Y.S.2d 811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), entered May 29, 2008, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained damages in the sum of $600,000, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The only issue raised on appeal involves whether certain expert testimony should have been admitted into evidence. Under the circumstances of this case, the testimony in question was properly admitted (see Trimarco v Klein, 56 NY2d 98 [1982]; Miller v Long Is. R.R., 212 AD2d 515 [1995]). Fisher, J.E, Covello, Dickerson and Lott, 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 defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), entered May 29, 2008, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained damages in the sum of $600,000, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The only issue raised on appeal involves whether certain expert testimony should have been admitted into evidence. Under the circumstances of this case, the testimony in question was properly admitted (see Trimarco v Klein, 56 NY2d 98 [1982]; Miller v Long Is. R.R., 212 AD2d 515 [1995]). Fisher, J.E, Covello, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.3d 987, 886 N.Y.S.2d 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serpa-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack