Augustine v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Augustine v. New York City Transit Authority

118 A.D.3d 475, 987 N.Y.S.2d 131

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

DecidedJune 10, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 475 (Augustine v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Augustine v. New York City Transit Authority, 118 A.D.3d 475, 987 N.Y.S.2d 131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia Kern, J.), entered February 27, 2012, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[476]*476The motion court properly found that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see generally McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [1st Dept 2004]). The jury weighed the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, and its determination was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Williams v City of New York, 109 AD3d 744 [1st Dept 2013]; White v New York City Tr. Auth., 40 AD3d 297 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia Kern, J.), entered February 27, 2012, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[476]*476The motion court properly found that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see generally McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [1st Dept 2004]). The jury weighed the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, and its determination was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Williams v City of New York, 109 AD3d 744 [1st Dept 2013]; White v New York City Tr. Auth., 40 AD3d 297 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 475, 987 N.Y.S.2d 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/augustine-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack