Manne v. Museum of Modern Art

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manne v. Museum of Modern Art

39 A.D.3d 368, 833 N.Y.S.2d 499

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

DecidedApril 19, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 368 (Manne v. Museum of Modern Art) 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

Manne v. Museum of Modern Art, 39 A.D.3d 368, 833 N.Y.S.2d 499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered March 21, 2006, upon the jury’s special verdict, in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its conclusion upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]; Cornier v Spagna, 101 AD2d 141, 149 [1984]). Disputes as to proof are “for the jury to resolve in assessing all of the evidence as well as the credibility of the witnesses” (Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, 425 [1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 602 [1987]). Here, the disputed factual issues and any inconsistencies between plaintiffs trial testimony and his prior testimony were placed before the jury, whose resolution of any conflicting evidence is entitled to deference, and is more than amply supported in the record.

There was no error in the trial court’s refusal to give a missing documents charge since plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that the documents in question actually existed and were under defendant’s control (Crespo v New York City Hous. Auth., 222 AD2d 300, 301 [1995]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered March 21, 2006, upon the jury’s special verdict, in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its conclusion upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]; Cornier v Spagna, 101 AD2d 141, 149 [1984]). Disputes as to proof are “for the jury to resolve in assessing all of the evidence as well as the credibility of the witnesses” (Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, 425 [1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 602 [1987]). Here, the disputed factual issues and any inconsistencies between plaintiffs trial testimony and his prior testimony were placed before the jury, whose resolution of any conflicting evidence is entitled to deference, and is more than amply supported in the record.

There was no error in the trial court’s refusal to give a missing documents charge since plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that the documents in question actually existed and were under defendant’s control (Crespo v New York City Hous. Auth., 222 AD2d 300, 301 [1995]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 368, 833 N.Y.S.2d 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manne-v-museum-of-modern-art-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack