From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Antipenko v. Schmidke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 1998
255 A.D.2d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 16, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We do not find that the jury's verdict should be set aside as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. It cannot be said that the jury's finding of no negligence in this "trip and fall" case could not be reached "on any fair interpretation of the evidence" ( Nordhauser v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 176 A.D.2d 787, 789; see also, Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl., 80 N.Y.2d 490, 495; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 135). Further, the court's jury instructions regarding negligence were adequate to apprise the jury of the appropriate legal standards for evaluating the plaintiff's claims on this record ( cf, J.R. Loftus, Inc. v. White, 85 N.Y.2d 874, 876).

The plaintiff's remaining contention does not warrant disturbing the verdict.

Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Antipenko v. Schmidke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 1998
255 A.D.2d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Antipenko v. Schmidke

Case Details

Full title:ANATOLE ANTIPENKO, Appellant, v. ELIZABETH SCHMIDKE, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 589

Citing Cases

Bongiorno v. Edelman

It cannot be said that the jury's finding in favor of the defendants could not be reached on any fair…