AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

IN THE MATTER OF HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. ASMAT KHAN, APPELLANT.

DECISION ORDER

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 N.Y.2d 490; Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v. Dabush, 264 A.D.2d 848; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. McMahon, 251 A.D.2d 571; Matter of Aetna Life Cas. v. Gramazio, 242 A.D.2d 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY v. KHAN
(Jan 16, 2001)