Beyor v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beyor v. Phillips

210 A.D.2d 918, 621 N.Y.S.2d 977

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 918 (Beyor v. Phillips) 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

Beyor v. Phillips, 210 A.D.2d 918, 621 N.Y.S.2d 977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting that portion of plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict that apportioned liability 90% against plaintiffs and 10% against defendant. It cannot be said that the jury’s apportionment of liability could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Therefore, we modify the order by vacating those portions that granted that portion of plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict apportioning liability and granted a new trial on liability. In all other respects, the [919]*919order is affirmed. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brandt, J.—Set Aside Verdict.) Present— Balio, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting that portion of plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict that apportioned liability 90% against plaintiffs and 10% against defendant. It cannot be said that the jury’s apportionment of liability could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Therefore, we modify the order by vacating those portions that granted that portion of plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict apportioning liability and granted a new trial on liability. In all other respects, the [919]*919order is affirmed. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brandt, J.—Set Aside Verdict.) Present— Balio, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 918, 621 N.Y.S.2d 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beyor-v-phillips-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack