Franklin v. Fiedler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franklin v. Fiedler

107 A.D.3d 762, 966 N.Y.S.2d 688

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

DecidedJune 12, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A.D.3d 762 (Franklin v. Fiedler) 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

Franklin v. Fiedler, 107 A.D.3d 762, 966 N.Y.S.2d 688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeStefano, J.), entered November 1, 2011, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the jury verdict, finding that the defendant was not negligent, was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Roman and Hinds-Radix, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeStefano, J.), entered November 1, 2011, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the jury verdict, finding that the defendant was not negligent, was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.3d 762, 966 N.Y.S.2d 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-fiedler-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack