King v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. City of New York

209 A.D.2d 673, 619 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11752

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 673 (King v. City of New York) 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

King v. City of New York, 209 A.D.2d 673, 619 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated May 14, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the jury verdict in the defendants’ favor on the issue of liability and ordered a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the inflammatory and improper summation comments of the defense counsel and the strong evidence of negligence offered by the plaintiff in support of a liability finding against the defendants, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion under CPLR 4404 (a) by setting aside the jury’s verdict and ordering a new trial. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated May 14, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the jury verdict in the defendants’ favor on the issue of liability and ordered a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the inflammatory and improper summation comments of the defense counsel and the strong evidence of negligence offered by the plaintiff in support of a liability finding against the defendants, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion under CPLR 4404 (a) by setting aside the jury’s verdict and ordering a new trial. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 673, 619 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack