Abuzeed v. Mile Square Transportation, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abuzeed v. Mile Square Transportation, Inc.

119 A.D.3d 621, 988 N.Y.S.2d 888

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

DecidedJuly 9, 2014

Docket2013-00716

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 A.D.3d 621 (Abuzeed v. Mile Square Transportation, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abuzeed v. Mile Square Transportation, Inc., 119 A.D.3d 621, 988 N.Y.S.2d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered November 13, 2012, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. “[A] jury verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the evidence preponderates so heavily in the plaintiffs favor that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Lopreiato v Scotti, *622 101 AD3d 829 [2012]; see Das v Costco Wholesale Corp., 98 AD3d 712 [2012]; Coma v City of New York, 97 AD3d 715 [2012]; Bonny v Pierre, 91 AD3d 694 [2012]; Semel v Guzman, 84 AD3d 1054 [2011] ). “It is for the jury to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference in this regard is accorded to the jury, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” (Lopreiato v Scotti, 101 AD3d at 830; see Verizon N.Y., Inc. v Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., 100 AD3d 983 [2012] ; Vaccarino v Mad Den, Inc., 100 AD3d 867 [2012]; Jean-Louis v City of New York, 86 AD3d 628 [2011]). Based on the evidence adduced at trial, the verdict in favor of the defendants should not be disturbed.

The plaintiffs current contentions regarding the trial court’s charge to the jury with respect to PJI 2:80 are unpreserved for appellate review since the plaintiff never objected to the trial court’s jury charge on the grounds now argued (see Schlesinger v City of New York, 30 AD3d 400 [2006]; 34-35 Corp. v Industry City Assoc., 14 AD3d 550 [2005]; Rockowitz v Greenstein, 11 AD3d 523 [2004]).

Balkin, J.E, Austin, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered November 13, 2012, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. “[A] jury verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the evidence preponderates so heavily in the plaintiffs favor that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Lopreiato v Scotti, *622 101 AD3d 829 [2012]; see Das v Costco Wholesale Corp., 98 AD3d 712 [2012]; Coma v City of New York, 97 AD3d 715 [2012]; Bonny v Pierre, 91 AD3d 694 [2012]; Semel v Guzman, 84 AD3d 1054 [2011] ). “It is for the jury to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference in this regard is accorded to the jury, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” (Lopreiato v Scotti, 101 AD3d at 830; see Verizon N.Y., Inc. v Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., 100 AD3d 983 [2012] ; Vaccarino v Mad Den, Inc., 100 AD3d 867 [2012]; Jean-Louis v City of New York, 86 AD3d 628 [2011]). Based on the evidence adduced at trial, the verdict in favor of the defendants should not be disturbed.

The plaintiffs current contentions regarding the trial court’s charge to the jury with respect to PJI 2:80 are unpreserved for appellate review since the plaintiff never objected to the trial court’s jury charge on the grounds now argued (see Schlesinger v City of New York, 30 AD3d 400 [2006]; 34-35 Corp. v Industry City Assoc., 14 AD3d 550 [2005]; Rockowitz v Greenstein, 11 AD3d 523 [2004]).

Balkin, J.E, Austin, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 621, 988 N.Y.S.2d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abuzeed-v-mile-square-transportation-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack