Barreca v. Monadnock Construction, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barreca v. Monadnock Construction, Inc.

131 A.D.3d 659, 15 N.Y.S.3d 701

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

DecidedAugust 26, 2015

Docket2014-00376

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 659 (Barreca v. Monadnock Construction, 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

Barreca v. Monadnock Construction, Inc., 131 A.D.3d 659, 15 N.Y.S.3d 701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated October 17, 2013, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability and for a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the defense counsel’s comments during his summation were either fair comments on the evidence or were isolated comments that did not deprive the plaintiff of a fair trial (see generally Jean-Louis v City of New York, 86 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; Alston v Sunharbor Manor, LLC, 48 AD3d 600, 603 [2008]; cf. Boyd v Blessey, 96 AD2d 816, 817 [1983]).

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Miller and LaSalle, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated October 17, 2013, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability and for a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the defense counsel’s comments during his summation were either fair comments on the evidence or were isolated comments that did not deprive the plaintiff of a fair trial (see generally Jean-Louis v City of New York, 86 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; Alston v Sunharbor Manor, LLC, 48 AD3d 600, 603 [2008]; cf. Boyd v Blessey, 96 AD2d 816, 817 [1983]).

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 659, 15 N.Y.S.3d 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barreca-v-monadnock-construction-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack