Cruz v. Adelphi University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. Adelphi University

292 A.D.2d 487, 739 N.Y.S.2d 273, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2939

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 487 (Cruz v. Adelphi 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

Cruz v. Adelphi University, 292 A.D.2d 487, 739 N.Y.S.2d 273, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ritholtz, J.), dated October 13, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, and the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), inter alia, to set aside the verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[488]*488The plaintiff’s contention that the verdict should not have been delivered before a witness’s testimony was read back to the jury, as it had requested, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Sanchez v Kato, Inc., 115 AD2d 646; Meyers v Fifth Ave. Bldg. Assoc., 90 AD2d 824, 825). In any event, the jury continued to deliberate after its request for a readback was granted, and it reached a verdict, despite knowing that it could rehear this testimony. Apparently, it was able to resolve any issues without a readback. Since the verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict was properly denied (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134; Shachnow v Myers, 229 AD2d 432, 433). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ritholtz, J.), dated October 13, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, and the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), inter alia, to set aside the verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[488]*488The plaintiff’s contention that the verdict should not have been delivered before a witness’s testimony was read back to the jury, as it had requested, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Sanchez v Kato, Inc., 115 AD2d 646; Meyers v Fifth Ave. Bldg. Assoc., 90 AD2d 824, 825). In any event, the jury continued to deliberate after its request for a readback was granted, and it reached a verdict, despite knowing that it could rehear this testimony. Apparently, it was able to resolve any issues without a readback. Since the verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict was properly denied (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134; Shachnow v Myers, 229 AD2d 432, 433). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 487, 739 N.Y.S.2d 273, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-adelphi-university-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack