Legal Opinion

Storer v. Roselle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 14, 1992No. Appeal No. 1PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: A verdict should not be set aside if it "is one [that] reasonable persons could have rendered after receiving conflicting evidence” (Petrovski v Fornes, 125 AD2d 972, 973, Iv denied 69 NY2d 608). There was conflicting testimony at trial with respect to the crucial issue of responsibility for plaintiffs failure to continue medical treatment. A reasonable person could have found, as the jury did, that at some point defendant, a chiropractor, endeavored to persuade plaintiff…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kuncio v. Millard Fillmore HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
  2. Petrovski v. FornesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
  3. Monahan v. ComenaleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Murry v. WitherelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
  2. Texido v. MargarucciAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API