Breitstone v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breitstone v. Hertz Corp.

178 A.D.2d 179

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 179 (Breitstone v. Hertz Corp.) 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

Breitstone v. Hertz Corp., 178 A.D.2d 179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered on or about May 24, 1991, as resettled by the order of the same court entered on or about August 27, 1991, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury verdict of $135,000 and ordered a new trial unless defendants stipulated to damages in the amount of $400,000, unanimously affirmed, for the reasons stated by Stecher, J., with costs.

We also note that the record does not support defendants’ contention that the court treated the settlement offer as a major factor, let alone the “sole criterion”, in setting aside the verdict. Nor have defendants shown that the court merely substituted its judgment for that of the jury, or that it ignored the mandate that a jury verdict not be set aside unless it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, lv denied 70 NY2d 602). While the jury was free, as defendants contend, to reject the testimony of plaintiff, and his expert, their testimony was neither inherently implausible nor rebutted by defendants. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered on or about May 24, 1991, as resettled by the order of the same court entered on or about August 27, 1991, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury verdict of $135,000 and ordered a new trial unless defendants stipulated to damages in the amount of $400,000, unanimously affirmed, for the reasons stated by Stecher, J., with costs.

We also note that the record does not support defendants’ contention that the court treated the settlement offer as a major factor, let alone the “sole criterion”, in setting aside the verdict. Nor have defendants shown that the court merely substituted its judgment for that of the jury, or that it ignored the mandate that a jury verdict not be set aside unless it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, lv denied 70 NY2d 602). While the jury was free, as defendants contend, to reject the testimony of plaintiff, and his expert, their testimony was neither inherently implausible nor rebutted by defendants. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breitstone-v-hertz-corp-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack