Trombin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trombin v. City of New York

33 A.D.3d 564, 824 N.Y.S.2d 14

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

DecidedOctober 31, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 564 (Trombin v. City of New York) 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

Trombin v. City of New York, 33 A.D.3d 564, 824 N.Y.S.2d 14 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered February 6, 2006, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict was properly denied since, based on the trial evidence, the jury could have rationally concluded (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]) that on the occasion in question defendant taxicab operator Rahman unavoidably lost control of his vehicle after hitting a pothole and, accordingly, was not negligent in connection with the accident in which plaintiff Klaudio Trombin, his passenger, was injured.

The trial court properly permitted defendants’ orthopedist to testify as to his interpretation of the MRI films of plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spine, since he had reviewed the actual films and plaintiffs had notified the court of their intention to introduce the films into evidence (see Wagman v Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84 [2002]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered February 6, 2006, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict was properly denied since, based on the trial evidence, the jury could have rationally concluded (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]) that on the occasion in question defendant taxicab operator Rahman unavoidably lost control of his vehicle after hitting a pothole and, accordingly, was not negligent in connection with the accident in which plaintiff Klaudio Trombin, his passenger, was injured.

The trial court properly permitted defendants’ orthopedist to testify as to his interpretation of the MRI films of plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spine, since he had reviewed the actual films and plaintiffs had notified the court of their intention to introduce the films into evidence (see Wagman v Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84 [2002]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 564, 824 N.Y.S.2d 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trombin-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack