Anderson v. Grimes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Grimes

270 A.D.2d 371, 705 N.Y.S.2d 248, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2950

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 371 (Anderson v. Grimes) 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

Anderson v. Grimes, 270 A.D.2d 371, 705 N.Y.S.2d 248, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), dated January 5, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant not at fault in the happening of the accident, and the denial of his posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff’s posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. It is well settled that a jury’s determination should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence un[372]*372less the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Moreover, the jury’s resolution of issues of credibility is entitled to great deference (see, Voiclis v International Assn. of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, 239 AD2d 339; Corcoran v People’s Ambulette Serv., 237 AD2d 402, 403). The verdict here was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Voiclis v International Assn. of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, supra; Corcoran v People’s Ambulette Serv., supra; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134, supra). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Peuerstein, 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 (Rosato, J.), dated January 5, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant not at fault in the happening of the accident, and the denial of his posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff’s posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. It is well settled that a jury’s determination should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence un[372]*372less the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Moreover, the jury’s resolution of issues of credibility is entitled to great deference (see, Voiclis v International Assn. of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, 239 AD2d 339; Corcoran v People’s Ambulette Serv., 237 AD2d 402, 403). The verdict here was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Voiclis v International Assn. of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, supra; Corcoran v People’s Ambulette Serv., supra; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134, supra). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Peuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 371, 705 N.Y.S.2d 248, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-grimes-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack