Sotomayor v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sotomayor v. New York City Housing Authority

265 A.D.2d 255, 696 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10855

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 255 (Sotomayor v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Sotomayor v. New York City Housing Authority, 265 A.D.2d 255, 696 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered July 13, 1998, upon a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor, awarding plaintiff the total sum of $54,268.75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury verdict, finding, inter alia, that defendant had notice of the ice hazard on its premises upon which plaintiff slipped and fell, was supported by legally sufficient evidence, particularly when the evidence is viewed, as it must be, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the prevailing party at trial (see, Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 464). Upon review of the record, we find, in addition, that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498-499). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered July 13, 1998, upon a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor, awarding plaintiff the total sum of $54,268.75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury verdict, finding, inter alia, that defendant had notice of the ice hazard on its premises upon which plaintiff slipped and fell, was supported by legally sufficient evidence, particularly when the evidence is viewed, as it must be, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the prevailing party at trial (see, Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 464). Upon review of the record, we find, in addition, that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498-499). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 255, 696 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sotomayor-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack