Felumero v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Felumero v. City of New York

261 A.D.2d 571, 688 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5665

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

DecidedMay 24, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 571 (Felumero 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

Felumero v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 571, 688 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 30, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 50% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $513,345.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the [572]*572facts, and a new trial on both liability and damages is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The instant judgment must be reversed and a new trial held because the jury’s verdict on liability could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence adduced at trial (see, e.g., Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744; Briccio v Disbrow, 212 AD2d 565; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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 defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 30, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 50% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $513,345.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the [572]*572facts, and a new trial on both liability and damages is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The instant judgment must be reversed and a new trial held because the jury’s verdict on liability could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence adduced at trial (see, e.g., Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744; Briccio v Disbrow, 212 AD2d 565; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 571, 688 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felumero-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack