Trillo v. Gerry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trillo v. Gerry

135 A.D.2d 625, 522 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52562

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 135 A.D.2d 625 (Trillo v. Gerry) 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

Trillo v. Gerry, 135 A.D.2d 625, 522 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Widlitz, J.), dated January 29, 1987, which upon granting the motion of the defendant to dismiss made pursuant to CPLR 4401 at the close of the plaintiffs’ case and renewed at the close of all the evidence, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

While the evidence established that there was physical contact between the plaintiff Federeco Trillo and the left side of the defendant’s vehicle toward the rear, there was no evidence that the defendant had committed any negligent acts. Accordingly, since there was no issue for the jury’s consideration, the trial court properly granted the defendant’s renewed motion (see, McCloud v Marcantonio, 106 AD2d 493). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Widlitz, J.), dated January 29, 1987, which upon granting the motion of the defendant to dismiss made pursuant to CPLR 4401 at the close of the plaintiffs’ case and renewed at the close of all the evidence, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

While the evidence established that there was physical contact between the plaintiff Federeco Trillo and the left side of the defendant’s vehicle toward the rear, there was no evidence that the defendant had committed any negligent acts. Accordingly, since there was no issue for the jury’s consideration, the trial court properly granted the defendant’s renewed motion (see, McCloud v Marcantonio, 106 AD2d 493). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 625, 522 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trillo-v-gerry-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack