Accetta v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Accetta v. City of New York

287 A.D.2d 527, 731 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9600

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 527 (Accetta v. City of New York) 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

Accetta v. City of New York, 287 A.D.2d 527, 731 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated June 7, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). “[P]articular deference has traditionally been accorded to jury verdicts in favor of defendants in tort cases because the clash of factual contentions is often sharper and simpler in those matters and the jury need not find that a defendant has prevailed by a preponderance of the evidence but rather may simply conclude that the plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof requisite of establishing the defendant’s culpability” (Nicastro v Park, supra, at 134; see, Carotenuto v Harran Transp. Co., 226 AD2d 334).

The appellant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s conduct during the course of the trial deprived him of a fair trial is without merit. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Crane, 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, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated June 7, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). “[P]articular deference has traditionally been accorded to jury verdicts in favor of defendants in tort cases because the clash of factual contentions is often sharper and simpler in those matters and the jury need not find that a defendant has prevailed by a preponderance of the evidence but rather may simply conclude that the plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof requisite of establishing the defendant’s culpability” (Nicastro v Park, supra, at 134; see, Carotenuto v Harran Transp. Co., 226 AD2d 334).

The appellant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s conduct during the course of the trial deprived him of a fair trial is without merit. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 527, 731 N.Y.S.2d 637, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/accetta-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack