Gennaro v. Locascio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gennaro v. Locascio

18 A.D.3d 811, 795 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5870

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

DecidedMay 31, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 811 (Gennaro v. Locascio) 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

Gennaro v. Locascio, 18 A.D.3d 811, 795 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated December 1, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $279,445.20.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and affording them “every favorable inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented” (Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; see Magidenko v Consolidated Edison, 3 AD3d 553 [2004]; Ustilovskaya v Cohen, 304 AD2d 748 [2003]), there was a rational process by which the court could find in the plaintiffs’ favor (see Knee v Trump Vil. Constr. Corp., 15 AD3d 545 [2005]; Grillo v Brooklyn Hosp., 280 AD2d 452 [2001]; Brownell v City of New York, 277 AD2d 31 [2000]; Roca v Gerardi, 243 AD2d 616 [1997]; Caro v Skyline Terrace Coop., 132 AD2d 512 [1987]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see Horton v Smith, 51 NY2d 798 [1980]) or without merit. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Skelos, 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, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated December 1, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $279,445.20.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and affording them “every favorable inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented” (Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; see Magidenko v Consolidated Edison, 3 AD3d 553 [2004]; Ustilovskaya v Cohen, 304 AD2d 748 [2003]), there was a rational process by which the court could find in the plaintiffs’ favor (see Knee v Trump Vil. Constr. Corp., 15 AD3d 545 [2005]; Grillo v Brooklyn Hosp., 280 AD2d 452 [2001]; Brownell v City of New York, 277 AD2d 31 [2000]; Roca v Gerardi, 243 AD2d 616 [1997]; Caro v Skyline Terrace Coop., 132 AD2d 512 [1987]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see Horton v Smith, 51 NY2d 798 [1980]) or without merit. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 811, 795 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gennaro-v-locascio-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack