From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeVivo v. Perdue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 1988
144 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

November 28, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).


Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

We conclude that the trial court acted properly in denying the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the defendant. Given the testimony adduced at trial, the jury could have concluded, on a fair interpretation of the evidence, that the defendant exercised due care when he made his left turn into the intersection where the accident occurred (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141; McNierney v. Zara Contr. Co., 125 A.D.2d 456; Bogorad v. Fitzpatrick, 38 A.D.2d 923, affd 31 N.Y.2d 984; Olson v. Dougherty, 128 A.D.2d 920; cf., Kiernan v. Edwards, 97 A.D.2d 750; Lester v. Jolicofur, 120 A.D.2d 574). Lawrence, J.P., Spatt, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

DeVivo v. Perdue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 1988
144 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

DeVivo v. Perdue

Case Details

Full title:RUTH M. DeVIVO, Appellant, v. THOMAS L. PERDUE, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 28, 1988

Citations

144 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Teng v Fuentes

Credibility is solely for the jury (Sorokin v. Food Fair Stores, 51 AD2d 592, 593, 378 NYS2d 492, 493;…

Isani v. Avis Rent-A-Car

The court properly denied plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict. The jury could have reasonably…