St. Hiliare v. BKO Express, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

St. Hiliare v. BKO Express, LLC

134 A.D.3d 923, 20 N.Y.S.3d 904

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 2015·No. 2013-11314·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated September 18, 2013, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the significant limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $495,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants’ sole contention, that the jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident was not based on legally sufficient evidence, is unpreserved for appellate review, as the appellants did not raise that issue in the trial court (see Samouelian v Amroan, 127 AD3d *924 723, 723 [2015]; Volino v Long Is. R.R. Co., 83 AD3d 693 [2011]). Dillon, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Barros, 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 defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated September 18, 2013, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the significant limitation of use category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $495,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants’ sole contention, that the jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident was not based on legally sufficient evidence, is unpreserved for appellate review, as the appellants did not raise that issue in the trial court (see Samouelian v Amroan, 127 AD3d *924 723, 723 [2015]; Volino v Long Is. R.R. Co., 83 AD3d 693 [2011]). Dillon, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.

St. Hiliare v. BKO Express, LLC, 134 A.D.3d 923, 20 N.Y.S.3d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

134 A.D.3d 923 (St. Hiliare v. BKO Express, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related