Zimmerman v. Plotkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zimmerman v. Plotkin

244 A.D.2d 481, 665 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11612

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 17, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), dated November 4, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, was in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the sum of $111,424.15.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We are unpersuaded by the defendants’ argument that there was no valid line of reasoning from which the jury could have found in favor of the plaintiffs. Moreover, the jury’s finding that the defendants maintained their stairway in a dangerous condition, and that this dangerous condition was a proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff Rose Zimmerman, was supported by a fair interpretation of the credible evidence adduced at trial (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498-499).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), dated November 4, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, was in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the sum of $111,424.15.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We are unpersuaded by the defendants’ argument that there was no valid line of reasoning from which the jury could have found in favor of the plaintiffs. Moreover, the jury’s finding that the defendants maintained their stairway in a dangerous condition, and that this dangerous condition was a proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff Rose Zimmerman, was supported by a fair interpretation of the credible evidence adduced at trial (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498-499).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Zimmerman v. Plotkin, 244 A.D.2d 481, 665 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

244 A.D.2d 481 (Zimmerman v. Plotkin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related