Harden v. Faulk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harden v. Faulk

115 A.D.3d 1274, 987 N.Y.S.2d 274

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 A.D.3d 1274 (Harden v. Faulk) 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

Harden v. Faulk, 115 A.D.3d 1274, 987 N.Y.S.2d 274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion insofar as it seeks in the alternative leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is denied and the motion insofar as it seeks leave to reargue is granted in part and, upon reargument, the memorandum and order entered November 15, 2013 (111 AB3d 1380 [2013]) is amended by deleting the first two sentences of the third paragraph of the memorandum and substituting the following in place thereof: “Contrary to plaintiffs further contention, the court properly denied her motion for a directed verdict at the close of proof. Sufficient conflicting factual and expert proof was presented at trial and, ‘[according defendant ] every favorable inference from the evidence, there was indeed a rational process by which the jury could find in [his] favor’ (Wolfe v St. Clare’s Hosp. of Schenectady, 57 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2008]).”

Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.

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

Motion insofar as it seeks in the alternative leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is denied and the motion insofar as it seeks leave to reargue is granted in part and, upon reargument, the memorandum and order entered November 15, 2013 (111 AB3d 1380 [2013]) is amended by deleting the first two sentences of the third paragraph of the memorandum and substituting the following in place thereof: “Contrary to plaintiffs further contention, the court properly denied her motion for a directed verdict at the close of proof. Sufficient conflicting factual and expert proof was presented at trial and, ‘[according defendant ] every favorable inference from the evidence, there was indeed a rational process by which the jury could find in [his] favor’ (Wolfe v St. Clare’s Hosp. of Schenectady, 57 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2008]).”

Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 1274, 987 N.Y.S.2d 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harden-v-faulk-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack