Dunnaville v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

68 A.D.3d 1047, 890 N.Y.2d 356
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 22, 2009·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Here, the jury’s determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Solazzo v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 734 [2005]; Skouras v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 AD3d 547 [2008]; DeStefano v City of New York, 41 AD3d 528 [2007]; Dowden v Long Is. R.R., 305 AD2d 631 [2003]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Dunnaville v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 68 A.D.3d 1047, 890 N.Y.2d 356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

68 A.D.3d 1047 (Dunnaville v. Metropolitan Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pelletier v. Lahm
111 A.D.3d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Christoforatos v. City of New York
90 A.D.3d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Palermo v. Original California Taqueria, Inc.
72 A.D.3d 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Thompson
71 A.D.3d 1587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)