Mardakhayev v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mardakhayev v. City of New York

142 A.D.3d 691, 36 N.Y.S.3d 909

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

DecidedAugust 31, 2016

Docket2015-03852

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 A.D.3d 691 (Mardakhayev 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

Mardakhayev v. City of New York, 142 A.D.3d 691, 36 N.Y.S.3d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jimenez-Salta, J.), entered January 20, 2015, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“[A] jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Sokolik v Pateman, 114 AD3d 839, 840 [2014]; see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]). “Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors” (Sokolik v Pateman, 114 AD3d at 840-841; see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133 [1985]). Here, the jury’s determination that the defendant did not affirmatively create the alleged hazardous condition that caused the infant plaintiff to fall was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726 [2008]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.R, Hall, Sgroi and Barros, 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, Kings County (Jimenez-Salta, J.), entered January 20, 2015, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“[A] jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Sokolik v Pateman, 114 AD3d 839, 840 [2014]; see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]). “Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors” (Sokolik v Pateman, 114 AD3d at 840-841; see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133 [1985]). Here, the jury’s determination that the defendant did not affirmatively create the alleged hazardous condition that caused the infant plaintiff to fall was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726 [2008]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.R, Hall, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 691, 36 N.Y.S.3d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mardakhayev-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack