Zasadzinski v. Hagan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zasadzinski v. Hagan

60 A.D.2d 855, 401 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9884

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.2d 855 (Zasadzinski v. Hagan) 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

Zasadzinski v. Hagan, 60 A.D.2d 855, 401 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, [856]*856dated March 1, 1976, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury’s verdict in defendant’s favor and to order a new trial. Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Mollen, P. J., Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur; Suozzi, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order, deny plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of defendant, and to reinstate the verdict, with the following memorandum: The evidence adduced at the trial presented a sharp issue of fact on the questions of defendant’s negligence and the injured plaintiff's contributory negligence. Upon the evidence in the record, it may not be held that the preponderance of the evidence in favor of plaintiffs was so great that the verdict in favor of defendant could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict should not have been disturbed (see Portantino v Costanzo, 39 AD2d 554, 555).

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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, [856]*856dated March 1, 1976, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury’s verdict in defendant’s favor and to order a new trial. Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Mollen, P. J., Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur; Suozzi, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order, deny plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of defendant, and to reinstate the verdict, with the following memorandum: The evidence adduced at the trial presented a sharp issue of fact on the questions of defendant’s negligence and the injured plaintiff's contributory negligence. Upon the evidence in the record, it may not be held that the preponderance of the evidence in favor of plaintiffs was so great that the verdict in favor of defendant could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict should not have been disturbed (see Portantino v Costanzo, 39 AD2d 554, 555).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 855, 401 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zasadzinski-v-hagan-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack