Case ID: ad3d_91/html/0414-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Donna Spagnoli-Scheman et al., Appellants, v Thomas G. Bellew et al., Respondents.
    [935 NYS2d 510]
   The jury’s verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 205-206 [2004]). There was conflicting expert testimony regarding whether plaintiff Spagnoli-Scheman sustained serious injuries , within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the jury was “entitled to accept or reject” the testimony of plaintiffs’ experts “in whole or in part” (Crooms v Sauer Bros. Inc., 48 AD3d 380, 382 [2008]; see Crespo v Chan, 54 AD3d 621 [2008]). Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Andrias, De-Grasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.