Windheim v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Windheim v. State

114 A.D.2d 1028, 496 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54075

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1985

DocketClaim No. 63607; Claim No. 63608

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 1028 (Windheim v. State) 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

Windheim v. State, 114 A.D.2d 1028, 496 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In two claims to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising from a motor vehicle accident, claimants appeal from two judgments of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), each dated April 9, 1984, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed their respective claims.

Judgments affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Claimants contend that an allegedly defective highway shoulder condition contributed to the accident. However, the trial court found that the alleged condition was not a proximate cause of the accident. The record indicates that this was a question for the fact finder and we perceive no grounds on which to disturb the trial court’s finding. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

— In two claims to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., arising from a motor vehicle accident, claimants appeal from two judgments of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), each dated April 9, 1984, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed their respective claims.

Judgments affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Claimants contend that an allegedly defective highway shoulder condition contributed to the accident. However, the trial court found that the alleged condition was not a proximate cause of the accident. The record indicates that this was a question for the fact finder and we perceive no grounds on which to disturb the trial court’s finding. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 1028, 496 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windheim-v-state-nyappdiv-1985.