Malaty v. North Arkansas Wholesale Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malaty v. North Arkansas Wholesale Co.

305 A.D.2d 556, 759 N.Y.S.2d 400

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

DecidedMay 19, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 556 (Malaty v. North Arkansas Wholesale Co.) 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

Malaty v. North Arkansas Wholesale Co., 305 A.D.2d 556, 759 N.Y.S.2d 400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered March 18, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that the defendants were not negligent (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions that the conduct of the trial court denied them a fair trial, the actions of the trial court were, in the main, directed towards focusing the proceedings on the relevant issues and clarifying facts material to the case in order to expedite the trial. While certain of the actions and statements of the trial court may have been somewhat intemperate or better left unsaid, overall the conduct complained of was not so egregious as to have deprived the plaintiffs of a fair trial (see Sheinkerman v 3111 Ocean Parkway Assoc., 259 AD2d 480 [1999]; Colon v City of New York, 245 AD2d 258 [1997]; Pallotta v West Bend Co., 166 AD2d 637 [1990]; LaMotta v City of New York, 130 AD2d 627 [1987]; cf. Habenicht v R. K. O. Theatres, 23 AD2d 378 [1965]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, McGinity and Adams, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered March 18, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them on the issue of liability, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that the defendants were not negligent (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions that the conduct of the trial court denied them a fair trial, the actions of the trial court were, in the main, directed towards focusing the proceedings on the relevant issues and clarifying facts material to the case in order to expedite the trial. While certain of the actions and statements of the trial court may have been somewhat intemperate or better left unsaid, overall the conduct complained of was not so egregious as to have deprived the plaintiffs of a fair trial (see Sheinkerman v 3111 Ocean Parkway Assoc., 259 AD2d 480 [1999]; Colon v City of New York, 245 AD2d 258 [1997]; Pallotta v West Bend Co., 166 AD2d 637 [1990]; LaMotta v City of New York, 130 AD2d 627 [1987]; cf. Habenicht v R. K. O. Theatres, 23 AD2d 378 [1965]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 556, 759 N.Y.S.2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malaty-v-north-arkansas-wholesale-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack