Davis v. 383 Warburton Avenue Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. 383 Warburton Avenue Associates

181 A.D.2d 708, 581 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3345

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 708 (Davis v. 383 Warburton Avenue Associates) 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

Davis v. 383 Warburton Avenue Associates, 181 A.D.2d 708, 581 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered March 8, 1990, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to respondent 383 Warburton Avenue Associates.

On December 7, 1984, the plaintiff Brenda Davis was injured while descending a fire escape in a building owned by the defendant 383 Warburton Avenue Associates. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action, alleging that her injuries were caused by the negligent and careless manner in which the defendants maintained the building. After extensive testimony bearing upon whether the defendants’ building was in compliance with the Multiple Residence Law, the jury unanimously found in favor of the defendants.

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the verdict was [709]*709against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. " 'A verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside as against the weight of the credible evidence unless the preponderance in favor of the plaintiff was so great that the finding in favor of the defendant could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence’ ” (Kwasny v Feinberg, 157 AD2d 396, 402, quoting Olsen v Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 AD2d 539, 544, affd 9 NY2d 829; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). In view of the conflicting evidence presented to the jury concerning whether the defendants met the requirements of the Multiple Residence Law, it cannot be said that the verdict in the defendants’ favor could not have been reached by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Kwasny v Feinberg, supra; Nicastro v Park, supra).

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Harwood, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Ritter, 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, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered March 8, 1990, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to respondent 383 Warburton Avenue Associates.

On December 7, 1984, the plaintiff Brenda Davis was injured while descending a fire escape in a building owned by the defendant 383 Warburton Avenue Associates. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action, alleging that her injuries were caused by the negligent and careless manner in which the defendants maintained the building. After extensive testimony bearing upon whether the defendants’ building was in compliance with the Multiple Residence Law, the jury unanimously found in favor of the defendants.

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the verdict was [709]*709against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. " 'A verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside as against the weight of the credible evidence unless the preponderance in favor of the plaintiff was so great that the finding in favor of the defendant could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence’ ” (Kwasny v Feinberg, 157 AD2d 396, 402, quoting Olsen v Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 AD2d 539, 544, affd 9 NY2d 829; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). In view of the conflicting evidence presented to the jury concerning whether the defendants met the requirements of the Multiple Residence Law, it cannot be said that the verdict in the defendants’ favor could not have been reached by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Kwasny v Feinberg, supra; Nicastro v Park, supra).

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Harwood, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 708, 581 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-383-warburton-avenue-associates-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack