Markowitz v. Puleo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Markowitz v. Puleo

243 A.D.2d 450, 665 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9360

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 450 (Markowitz v. Puleo) 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

Markowitz v. Puleo, 243 A.D.2d 450, 665 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated December 20, 1996, which, upon the granting of the plaintiffs motion to set aside so much of the jury’s verdict as was in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

While a jury verdict should not be set aside unless it is not supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence, the decision of a trial court to do so is entitled to great respect (see, Tunnell v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 186 AD2d 643). Once the jury discredited the sole explanation of the defendant James Puleo for the subject automobile accident, that an unidentified white vehicle had struck his vehicle forcing him off of the road, the only reasonable conclusion was that James Puleo had been negligent. The trial court therefore properly exercised its discretion in setting aside that portion of the [451]*451jury’s verdict which found that James Puleo had not been negligent and granting judgment as a matter of law to the plaintiff on the issue of liability. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated December 20, 1996, which, upon the granting of the plaintiffs motion to set aside so much of the jury’s verdict as was in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

While a jury verdict should not be set aside unless it is not supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence, the decision of a trial court to do so is entitled to great respect (see, Tunnell v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 186 AD2d 643). Once the jury discredited the sole explanation of the defendant James Puleo for the subject automobile accident, that an unidentified white vehicle had struck his vehicle forcing him off of the road, the only reasonable conclusion was that James Puleo had been negligent. The trial court therefore properly exercised its discretion in setting aside that portion of the [451]*451jury’s verdict which found that James Puleo had not been negligent and granting judgment as a matter of law to the plaintiff on the issue of liability. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 450, 665 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markowitz-v-puleo-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack