Corrado v. Davuluri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corrado v. Davuluri

122 A.D.3d 1390, 995 N.Y.S.2d 527

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 21, 2014·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered June 25, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendants for a directed verdict.

It is hereby ordered that said appeals are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs case (see CPLR 4401). The jury was unable to reach a verdict after the close of evidence, and Supreme Court declared a mistrial. The appeals must be dismissed. The court’s order denying the motion for a directed verdict embodies “determinations in the nature of rulings by the court during the trial and is not appeal-able” (Coveil v H. R. H. Constr. Corp., 24 AD2d 566, 567 [1965], affd 17 NY2d 709 [1966]; see Kinker v 6409-20th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 AD2d 907, 908 [1967], appeal dismissed 20 NY2d 796 [1967]; see also Kemp v Lynch, 283 AD2d 934, 934 [2001]), either as of right or by permission (see Radford v Sheridan Prods., [1391] 181 AD2d 667, 668 [1992]).

Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.

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

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered June 25, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendants for a directed verdict.

It is hereby ordered that said appeals are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs case (see CPLR 4401). The jury was unable to reach a verdict after the close of evidence, and Supreme Court declared a mistrial. The appeals must be dismissed. The court’s order denying the motion for a directed verdict embodies “determinations in the nature of rulings by the court during the trial and is not appeal-able” (Coveil v H. R. H. Constr. Corp., 24 AD2d 566, 567 [1965], affd 17 NY2d 709 [1966]; see Kinker v 6409-20th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 AD2d 907, 908 [1967], appeal dismissed 20 NY2d 796 [1967]; see also Kemp v Lynch, 283 AD2d 934, 934 [2001]), either as of right or by permission (see Radford v Sheridan Prods., [1391] 181 AD2d 667, 668 [1992]).

Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.

Corrado v. Davuluri, 122 A.D.3d 1390, 995 N.Y.S.2d 527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

122 A.D.3d 1390 (Corrado v. Davuluri) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related