Carnavalla v. Osso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carnavalla v. Osso

301 A.D.2d 620, 753 N.Y.S.2d 887

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 620 (Carnavalla v. Osso) 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

Carnavalla v. Osso, 301 A.D.2d 620, 753 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to re[621]*621cover damages for breach of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Perone, J.), dated March 20, 2001, as, upon the granting of the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in his favor and for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the principal sum of $130,401.67.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

For a court to conclude that a jury verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence as a matter of law, it must determine that there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Applying this standard, there is no valid line of reasoning or permissible inference which could have led the jury to conclude that the defendant did not breach the contract. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly set aside the jury verdict and directed judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Smith and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to re[621]*621cover damages for breach of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Perone, J.), dated March 20, 2001, as, upon the granting of the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in his favor and for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the principal sum of $130,401.67.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

For a court to conclude that a jury verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence as a matter of law, it must determine that there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Applying this standard, there is no valid line of reasoning or permissible inference which could have led the jury to conclude that the defendant did not breach the contract. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly set aside the jury verdict and directed judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Smith and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 620, 753 N.Y.S.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carnavalla-v-osso-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack