Ladson v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ladson v. New York City Housing Authority

31 A.D.2d 611, 295 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2747

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 611 (Ladson v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Ladson v. New York City Housing Authority, 31 A.D.2d 611, 295 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered June 11, 1968, setting aside a jury verdict in favor of defendants and granting a new trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the verdict reinstated, and judgment directed thereon in favor of defendants, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants. A jury verdict in favor of defendant may not be set aside unless it plainly appears that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiff that the verdict for the defendant could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence. (Marton v. McCasland, 16 A D 2d 781-782; Salvitelli v. Janusz, 19 A D 2d 886.) The instant case involved simple issues of credibility. They were resolved by the jury’s verdict, on sufficient evidence. The Trial Judge was in error in setting it aside. The specific ground assigned by him, namely a few remarks uttered by defendant’s counsel during summaton, to which no objection was noted and no protestation made, was not well taken. Actually, the remarks were well within the range of fair argumentation, and considering the nature of the case, did not merit rep-' rehension. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, MeGivem and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered June 11, 1968, setting aside a jury verdict in favor of defendants and granting a new trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the verdict reinstated, and judgment directed thereon in favor of defendants, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants. A jury verdict in favor of defendant may not be set aside unless it plainly appears that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiff that the verdict for the defendant could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence. (Marton v. McCasland, 16 A D 2d 781-782; Salvitelli v. Janusz, 19 A D 2d 886.) The instant case involved simple issues of credibility. They were resolved by the jury’s verdict, on sufficient evidence. The Trial Judge was in error in setting it aside. The specific ground assigned by him, namely a few remarks uttered by defendant’s counsel during summaton, to which no objection was noted and no protestation made, was not well taken. Actually, the remarks were well within the range of fair argumentation, and considering the nature of the case, did not merit rep-' rehension. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, MeGivem and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 611, 295 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ladson-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack