Kiritsis v. North Shore School District
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the facts adduced at trial were insufficient to warrant a jury charge on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The nature of the testimony did not give rise to an inference that the injury was caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant North Shore School District (see Bodnarchuk v State of New York, 49 AD3d 581, 582 [2008]; Sangiovanni v Koloski, 31 AD3d 422, 423 [2006]; Patrick v Bally’s Total Fitness, 292 AD2d 433, 434-435 [2002] ). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ request for a res ipsa loquitur…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lustenring v. 98-100 RealtyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Patrick v. Bally's Total FitnessAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Sangiovanni v. KoloskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Bodnarchuk v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Krakinowski v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005