From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Disla v. DHL Airways, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 18, 1995
219 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

September 18, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's claim regarding the inconsistency of the verdict is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Gross v Fontano, 206 A.D.2d 505). In any event, the verdict was not inconsistent (see, Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d 525).

Further, the jury's findings were not against the weight of the evidence, as they were supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Briccio v Disbrow, 212 A.D.2d 565; Moskowitz v Israel, 209 A.D.2d 676). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Disla v. DHL Airways, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 18, 1995
219 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Disla v. DHL Airways, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARIA DISLA, Appellant, v. DHL AIRWAYS, INC., et al., Respondents, et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 18, 1995

Citations

219 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
631 N.Y.S.2d 533

Citing Cases

Reese v. New York City Board of Education

The plaintiffs contend that the verdict was internally inconsistent and therefore against the weight of the…

Goldman v. Hickory House Tenants Corp.

Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the jury's verdict is not inconsistent or against the weight of the…