Sniper v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sniper v. City of Syracuse

184 A.D.2d 1075

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 5, 1992·No. Appeal No. 1·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Viewing the trial record in the light most favorable to plaintiff (see, Meizlik v Benderson Dev. Co., 51 AD2d 676), we find that the jury’s verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493), and that the amount awarded to plaintiff for damages did not deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation for his injuries and loss of earnings (CPLR 5501 [c]). We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J. — Negligence.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Viewing the trial record in the light most favorable to plaintiff (see, Meizlik v Benderson Dev. Co., 51 AD2d 676), we find that the jury’s verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493), and that the amount awarded to plaintiff for damages did not deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation for his injuries and loss of earnings (CPLR 5501 [c]). We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J. — Negligence.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Sniper v. City of Syracuse, 184 A.D.2d 1075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

184 A.D.2d 1075 (Sniper v. City of Syracuse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related