Triana v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Triana v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

302 A.D.2d 591, 755 N.Y.S.2d 305

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 591 (Triana v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.) 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

Triana v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 302 A.D.2d 591, 755 N.Y.S.2d 305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated September 13, 2001, which denied her motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the jury’s finding that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) was supported by a valid line of reasoning or permissible inferences based on the evidence presented at trial (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]). Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Rivera, 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 injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated September 13, 2001, which denied her motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the jury’s finding that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) was supported by a valid line of reasoning or permissible inferences based on the evidence presented at trial (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]). Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 591, 755 N.Y.S.2d 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/triana-v-consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack