Hartford Insurance v. Khan
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Anderson v. Mastrangelo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Bercow v. Damus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Conquest Cleaning Corp. v. New York City School Construction Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Otto v. Triangle Aviation Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Kaniklidis v. 235 Lincoln Place Housing Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that the determination of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it could not have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490; Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Dabush, 264 AD2d 848; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v McMahon, 251 AD2d 571; Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. v Gramazio, 242 AD2d 530). The determination that there was no physical contact between the appellant’s vehicle and an unidentified vehicle is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Gold-stein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.