Tejeda v. 116 West Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tejeda v. 116 West Corp.

293 A.D.2d 261, 739 N.Y.S.2d 269, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3391

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

DecidedApril 2, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 261 (Tejeda v. 116 West 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

Tejeda v. 116 West Corp., 293 A.D.2d 261, 739 N.Y.S.2d 269, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J., and a jury), entered January 12, 2001, in an action for personal injuries caused by lead paint poisoning, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants-appellants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendants’ claim that the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding them responsible for all of plaintiff’s damages rather than allowing the jury to decide their share of the damages based on the uncontested periods of time that they respectively owned the building in which plaintiff’s injuries were sustained. There is no evidence to support a non-speculative apportionment on this basis (see, La Fountaine v Franzese, 282 AD2d 935, 938; cf, Ravo v Rogatnick, 70 NY2d 305, 312). We have considered defendants’ other arguments, including that their cross-examination of plaintiffs expert was unfairly curtailed, and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J., and a jury), entered January 12, 2001, in an action for personal injuries caused by lead paint poisoning, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants-appellants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendants’ claim that the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding them responsible for all of plaintiff’s damages rather than allowing the jury to decide their share of the damages based on the uncontested periods of time that they respectively owned the building in which plaintiff’s injuries were sustained. There is no evidence to support a non-speculative apportionment on this basis (see, La Fountaine v Franzese, 282 AD2d 935, 938; cf, Ravo v Rogatnick, 70 NY2d 305, 312). We have considered defendants’ other arguments, including that their cross-examination of plaintiffs expert was unfairly curtailed, and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 261, 739 N.Y.S.2d 269, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tejeda-v-116-west-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack