Werner v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Werner v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

210 A.D.2d 184, 620 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13210

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 184 (Werner v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 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

Werner v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 210 A.D.2d 184, 620 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[185]*185—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beau-champ Ciparick, J.), entered August 6, 1993, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On this record, the jury reasonably could have concluded that plaintiff failéd to meet his burden of demonstrating that defendants’ purported negligence in the cleaning of the basement garage was a substantial and proximate cause of the events which produced the injury (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). While there was conflicting testimony concerning the cause of the injury and whether defendants had taken adequate measures to protect against the dangers to be reasonably anticipated, the jury, which was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses (Niewieroski v Natural Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, 425, lv denied 70 NY2d 602), resolved the disputed facts in favor of defendants, and the record, including the court’s charge on foreseeability, does not present a sufficient basis to disturb its verdict (see, Phillips v United Artists Communications, 201 AD2d 634). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Williams and Nardelli, JJ.

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

[185]*185—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beau-champ Ciparick, J.), entered August 6, 1993, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On this record, the jury reasonably could have concluded that plaintiff failéd to meet his burden of demonstrating that defendants’ purported negligence in the cleaning of the basement garage was a substantial and proximate cause of the events which produced the injury (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). While there was conflicting testimony concerning the cause of the injury and whether defendants had taken adequate measures to protect against the dangers to be reasonably anticipated, the jury, which was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses (Niewieroski v Natural Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, 425, lv denied 70 NY2d 602), resolved the disputed facts in favor of defendants, and the record, including the court’s charge on foreseeability, does not present a sufficient basis to disturb its verdict (see, Phillips v United Artists Communications, 201 AD2d 634). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Williams and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 184, 620 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/werner-v-shearson-lehman-hutton-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack