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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 2002·Published

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.

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

292 A.D.2d 487 (Cruz v. Adelphi University) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related