Delay v. Rhinehart
| Decision Date | 04 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 176 A.D.2d 1211,576 N.Y.S.2d 830 |
| Parties | Neal P. DELAY, Appellant, v. Debra L. RHINEHART, Respondent. Appeal |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Paul Shanahan, Rochester, by Pierre Marlais, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. Kathleen Sassani, Syracuse, for respondent.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: A jury verdict in favor of defendant should not be set aside unless the evidence in favor of plaintiff is so great that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (Kuncio v. Millard Fillmore Hosp., 117 A.D.2d 975, 976, 499 N.Y.S.2d 525, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 608, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 498 N.E.2d 435; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184; Incardona v. Home Ind. Co., 60 A.D.2d 749, 400 N.Y.S.2d 944; Boyle v. Gretch, 57 A.D.2d 1047, 1048, 395 N.Y.S.2d 797). It is for the trier of the facts to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses (see, Weber v. State of New York, 107 A.D.2d 929, 931, 483 N.Y.S.2d 866), and the jury is free to accept or reject the opinions of expert witnesses (see, Felt v. Olson, 74 A.D.2d 722, 723, 425 N.Y.S.2d 686, affd. 51 N.Y.2d 977, 435 N.Y.S.2d 708, 416 N.E.2d 1043). Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the jury's determination that plaintiff's medical condition was not the result of an automobile accident with defendant's vehicle is not against the weight of the credible evidence. By failing to object to Dr. Baker's testimony on the grounds he now advances, plaintiff failed to preserve his present contentions for review. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.--Negligence.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Marino v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Cheektowaga
-
State ex rel. H.K. v. M.S.
...914, rearg. denied sub nom. Matter of Francis Charles W., 71 N.Y.2d 890, 527 N.Y.S.2d 772, 522 N.E.2d 1070; and see, Delay v. Rhinehart, 176 A.D.2d 1211, 576 N.Y.S.2d 830). The expert testimony rejected by the court was seriously undermined on cross-examination. Expert testimony may be reje......
- Samon v. City of Utica Zoning Bd. of Appeals
-
Corcoran v. People's Ambulette Service Inc.
...184). Moreover, it is for the trier of fact to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses (see, Delay v. Rhinehart, 176 A.D.2d 1211, 576 N.Y.S.2d 830) and great deference is accorded to the fact-finders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see, Salazar v. ......