Grant-Reason v. State Farm Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant-Reason v. State Farm Insurance

60 A.D.3d 903, 874 N.Y.S.2d 819

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 903 (Grant-Reason v. State Farm Insurance) 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

Grant-Reason v. State Farm Insurance, 60 A.D.3d 903, 874 N.Y.S.2d 819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendant State Farm Insurance Companies appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated August 15, 2007, which, after a [904]*904jury trial, sua sponte, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), set aside the jury verdict in favor of the defendant State Farm Insurance Companies and granted a new trial on all issues.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly set aside the jury verdict and granted a new trial on all issues (see Audige v New York City Tr. Auth., 149 AD2d 555 [1989]). The verdict was not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Saks & Co. v Continental Ins. Co., 23 NY2d 161 [1968]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendant State Farm Insurance Companies appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated August 15, 2007, which, after a [904]*904jury trial, sua sponte, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), set aside the jury verdict in favor of the defendant State Farm Insurance Companies and granted a new trial on all issues.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly set aside the jury verdict and granted a new trial on all issues (see Audige v New York City Tr. Auth., 149 AD2d 555 [1989]). The verdict was not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Saks & Co. v Continental Ins. Co., 23 NY2d 161 [1968]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 903, 874 N.Y.S.2d 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-reason-v-state-farm-insurance-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack