Skibola v. Structure-Tone, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skibola v. Structure-Tone, Inc.

16 A.D.3d 238, 790 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2687

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 238 (Skibola v. Structure-Tone, Inc.) 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

Skibola v. Structure-Tone, Inc., 16 A.D.3d 238, 790 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered August 5, 2003, upon jury verdict, against plaintiffs in favor of defendant Structure-Tone and third-party defendant Antovel-Gelberg Painting, and dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Presented with numerous inconsistencies as to whether the accident actually happened in the manner alleged by plaintiffs, the jury was in the best position to evaluate these credibility issues (see generally Grassi v Sea Shore Rest., 2 AD3d 222 [2003]). The verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, and was not against the weight of the evidence (see Kane v Coundorous, 11 AD3d 304 [2004]). The court properly denied plaintiffs’ request to introduce a prior consistent statement, since the record supports the conclusion that attacks on the injured party’s credibility were not based on a recent fabrication. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered August 5, 2003, upon jury verdict, against plaintiffs in favor of defendant Structure-Tone and third-party defendant Antovel-Gelberg Painting, and dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Presented with numerous inconsistencies as to whether the accident actually happened in the manner alleged by plaintiffs, the jury was in the best position to evaluate these credibility issues (see generally Grassi v Sea Shore Rest., 2 AD3d 222 [2003]). The verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, and was not against the weight of the evidence (see Kane v Coundorous, 11 AD3d 304 [2004]). The court properly denied plaintiffs’ request to introduce a prior consistent statement, since the record supports the conclusion that attacks on the injured party’s credibility were not based on a recent fabrication. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 238, 790 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skibola-v-structure-tone-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack