Denmark v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Denmark v. City of New York

40 A.D.2d 667, 337 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 667 (Denmark v. City of New York) 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

Denmark v. City of New York, 40 A.D.2d 667, 337 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Hew York County, entered on July 26, 1971, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs and without disbursements, and the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants on the cause of action for assault is reinstated. After a trial before a jury, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants on each of the causes of action, i.e., false arrest, malicious prosecution, and assault. Thereafter, upon plaintiff’s motion the trial court set the verdict aside with respect to the cause of action for assault. We find that such was error. The law is clear that: “When the motion is by the plaintiff to set aside a verdict in favor of defendant, the motion should not be granted unless the evidence preponderated so greatly in plaintiff’s favor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 539, 544, affd. 9 N Y 2d 829; Areson v. Hempstead Bus Corp., 14 A D 2d 790; Musumeci v. Pillsbury Mills, 12 A D 2d 941; Holpp v. Carafa, 8 A D 2d 617).” (Pertofsky v. Drucks, 16 A D 2d 690.) In our opinion there was ample evidence upon which the jury could fiúd in favor of defendants. The trial court concluded, in effect that there was no testimony of probative value which contradicted the plaintiff’s testimony as to how she sustained injury. However, the record reveals testimony not only by one of the arresting officers, but by other officers not involved, which contradicted in material respects plaintiff’s version of the incident and which submitted for the jury’s consideration facts and circumstances tending to show that no assault ever occurred. Such evidence, when combined with plaintiff’s own testimony, containing various inconsistencies, created questions of fact for the jury’s determination. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Hunez, Murphy, Tilzer and Macken, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Hew York County, entered on July 26, 1971, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs and without disbursements, and the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants on the cause of action for assault is reinstated. After a trial before a jury, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants on each of the causes of action, i.e., false arrest, malicious prosecution, and assault. Thereafter, upon plaintiff’s motion the trial court set the verdict aside with respect to the cause of action for assault. We find that such was error. The law is clear that: “When the motion is by the plaintiff to set aside a verdict in favor of defendant, the motion should not be granted unless the evidence preponderated so greatly in plaintiff’s favor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 539, 544, affd. 9 N Y 2d 829; Areson v. Hempstead Bus Corp., 14 A D 2d 790; Musumeci v. Pillsbury Mills, 12 A D 2d 941; Holpp v. Carafa, 8 A D 2d 617).” (Pertofsky v. Drucks, 16 A D 2d 690.) In our opinion there was ample evidence upon which the jury could fiúd in favor of defendants. The trial court concluded, in effect that there was no testimony of probative value which contradicted the plaintiff’s testimony as to how she sustained injury. However, the record reveals testimony not only by one of the arresting officers, but by other officers not involved, which contradicted in material respects plaintiff’s version of the incident and which submitted for the jury’s consideration facts and circumstances tending to show that no assault ever occurred. Such evidence, when combined with plaintiff’s own testimony, containing various inconsistencies, created questions of fact for the jury’s determination. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Hunez, Murphy, Tilzer and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 667, 337 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denmark-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack