Sowell v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sowell v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

16 A.D.3d 282, 791 N.Y.S.2d 413, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3125

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 282 (Sowell v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) 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

Sowell v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 16 A.D.3d 282, 791 N.Y.S.2d 413, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael V Ajello, J., and a jury), entered December 18, 2003, dismissing an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a hit-and-run accident, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While plaintiff and a friendly witness were the only persons to testify at trial, it does not necessarily follow that the verdict in defendant’s favor was against the weight of the evidence, where neither witness’s testimony gave any indication of the manner in which the offending vehicle was negligent. In addition, plaintiffs testimony concerning the effect of the impact on his balance was impeached on cross-examination. Plaintiff’s challenge to the jury interrogatories is unpreserved (CPLR 4110-b) and, in any event, the claimed error was harmless. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael V Ajello, J., and a jury), entered December 18, 2003, dismissing an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a hit-and-run accident, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While plaintiff and a friendly witness were the only persons to testify at trial, it does not necessarily follow that the verdict in defendant’s favor was against the weight of the evidence, where neither witness’s testimony gave any indication of the manner in which the offending vehicle was negligent. In addition, plaintiffs testimony concerning the effect of the impact on his balance was impeached on cross-examination. Plaintiff’s challenge to the jury interrogatories is unpreserved (CPLR 4110-b) and, in any event, the claimed error was harmless. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 282, 791 N.Y.S.2d 413, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sowell-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack