HARRIS, RUTH S. v. STOELZEL, WILLIAM

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

HARRIS, RUTH S. v. STOELZEL, WILLIAM

96 A.D.3d 1459, 945 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedJune 8, 2012

DocketCA 12-00021

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 A.D.3d 1459 (HARRIS, RUTH S. v. STOELZEL, WILLIAM) 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

HARRIS, RUTH S. v. STOELZEL, WILLIAM, 96 A.D.3d 1459, 945 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Thomas G. Leone, A.J.), entered March 30, 2011. The judgment dismissed the complaint upon a jury verdict.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that she acquired an easement by prescription on three portions of defendants’ property, for the benefit of her property. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants. Plaintiff failed to preserve for *1460 our review her contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as she failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Murdoch v Niagara Falls Bridge Commn., 81 AD3d 1456, 1457 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 702 [2011]; Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 [2008]). In any event, it cannot be said that “the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Martinez v Wascom, 57 AD3d 1415, 1416 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Manouselis v Woodworth Realty, LLC, 83 AD3d 801 [2011]; see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Thomas G. Leone, A.J.), entered March 30, 2011. The judgment dismissed the complaint upon a jury verdict.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that she acquired an easement by prescription on three portions of defendants’ property, for the benefit of her property. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants. Plaintiff failed to preserve for *1460 our review her contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as she failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Murdoch v Niagara Falls Bridge Commn., 81 AD3d 1456, 1457 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 702 [2011]; Homan v Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413-1414 [2008]). In any event, it cannot be said that “the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Martinez v Wascom, 57 AD3d 1415, 1416 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Manouselis v Woodworth Realty, LLC, 83 AD3d 801 [2011]; see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 1459, 945 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-ruth-s-v-stoelzel-william-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack