From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glick v. M.A. Hittner and Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1985
111 A.D.2d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

May 6, 1985

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


Judgment affirmed, with costs.

This action arose as the result of injuries sustained in a rear-end collision. There was conflicting testimony as to whether plaintiff had been stopped at a red light for several moments when he was hit, or whether he suddenly and without proper warning stopped his car, and defendant Locerto could not avoid a collision. In such a case, the issue of credibility is properly one for the jury ( Sorokin v. Food Fair Stores, 51 A.D.2d 592). Defendant Locerto cannot be held negligent as a matter of law because his vehicle hit plaintiff's in the rear ( see, Nikitas v Crailo Motors Corp., 17 A.D.2d 882). Viewing the evidence before the jury in the light most favorable to defendants, as we must, it cannot be said that a verdict in defendants' favor could not be reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence ( Matter of Kornblum Metals Co. v. Intsel Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 376). Therefore, we may not set the jury's verdict aside as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence ( cf. Pettersen v. Curreri, 99 A.D.2d 774; Goehle v. Town of Smithtown, 81 A.D.2d 607, affd 55 N.Y.2d 995). Mollen, P.J., Titone, O'Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Glick v. M.A. Hittner and Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1985
111 A.D.2d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Glick v. M.A. Hittner and Sons, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES GLICK, Appellant, v. M.A. HITTNER AND SONS, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: May 6, 1985

Citations

111 A.D.2d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Shapira v. Kruger

"Where the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled…

Migdol v. Striker

As a general rule, a rear-end collision with a stopped automobile creates a prima facie case of liability…