Barry v. Long Island University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barry v. Long Island University

8 A.D.3d 519, 778 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8711

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

DecidedJune 21, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 519 (Barry v. Long Island University) 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

Barry v. Long Island University, 8 A.D.3d 519, 778 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated March 31, 2003, which, upon the granting of the motion of the defendants Long Island University and Ed Goodhines pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, made at the close of the evidence, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law should be granted where “the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party” (Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; see Holt v Welding Servs., 264 AD2d 562 [1999]; Shpritzman v Strong, 248 AD2d 524 [1998]). Under the circumstances here, the trial court properly granted the motion for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Long Island University and Ed Goodhines.

The exclusion of cumulative evidence, at most, constituted harmless error (see Segnit v Stuhr Gardens Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 227 AD2d 612 [1996]; Tannen v Long Is. R.R., 215 AD2d 745 [1995]; Walker v State of New York, 111 AD2d 164 [1985]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated March 31, 2003, which, upon the granting of the motion of the defendants Long Island University and Ed Goodhines pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, made at the close of the evidence, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law should be granted where “the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party” (Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; see Holt v Welding Servs., 264 AD2d 562 [1999]; Shpritzman v Strong, 248 AD2d 524 [1998]). Under the circumstances here, the trial court properly granted the motion for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Long Island University and Ed Goodhines.

The exclusion of cumulative evidence, at most, constituted harmless error (see Segnit v Stuhr Gardens Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 227 AD2d 612 [1996]; Tannen v Long Is. R.R., 215 AD2d 745 [1995]; Walker v State of New York, 111 AD2d 164 [1985]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 519, 778 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barry-v-long-island-university-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack