Stoffel v. Cox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stoffel v. Cox

42 A.D.2d 770, 346 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767

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

DecidedJuly 23, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 770 (Stoffel v. Cox) 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

Stoffel v. Cox, 42 A.D.2d 770, 346 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal and property injuries and for loss of services, Ann Stoffel appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 27, 1972, against her, upon a jury verdict after trial solely on the issues of liability. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs to Carlos C. Cox as defendant in Actions 1 and 2. In our opinion, despite the testimony of the disinterested .witnesses to the contrary, the evidence, particularly relating to the damage sustained by the vehicles, was sufficient to support the finding, implicit in the verdict of the jury, that the accident happened in the manner claimed by Carlos C. Cox, a defendant in Actions 1 and 2 and a plaintiff in Action 3. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal and property injuries and for loss of services, Ann Stoffel appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 27, 1972, against her, upon a jury verdict after trial solely on the issues of liability. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs to Carlos C. Cox as defendant in Actions 1 and 2. In our opinion, despite the testimony of the disinterested .witnesses to the contrary, the evidence, particularly relating to the damage sustained by the vehicles, was sufficient to support the finding, implicit in the verdict of the jury, that the accident happened in the manner claimed by Carlos C. Cox, a defendant in Actions 1 and 2 and a plaintiff in Action 3. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 770, 346 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoffel-v-cox-nyappdiv-1973.