Mata v. I. Chera & Sons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mata v. I. Chera & Sons

304 A.D.2d 420, 757 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4195

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

DecidedApril 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 420 (Mata v. I. Chera & Sons) 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

Mata v. I. Chera & Sons, 304 A.D.2d 420, 757 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul Victor, J.), entered July 16, 2001, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for, inter alia, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but set aside the verdict in defendants’ favor as contrary to the weight of the evidence and directed a new trial on all issues, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs’ motion insofar as to direct judgment in their favor as to liability upon their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Because the uncontroverted evidence established, as a matter of law, that a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, the court should not have merely set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence but should have awarded plaintiff judgment as to liability upon his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. There was no reasonable view of the evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) had not been proved (see Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, 524 [1985]; MacNair v Salamon, 199 AD2d 170, 172 [1993]). There should now be a new trial as to plaintiffs’ damages. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul Victor, J.), entered July 16, 2001, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for, inter alia, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but set aside the verdict in defendants’ favor as contrary to the weight of the evidence and directed a new trial on all issues, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs’ motion insofar as to direct judgment in their favor as to liability upon their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Because the uncontroverted evidence established, as a matter of law, that a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, the court should not have merely set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence but should have awarded plaintiff judgment as to liability upon his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. There was no reasonable view of the evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) had not been proved (see Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, 524 [1985]; MacNair v Salamon, 199 AD2d 170, 172 [1993]). There should now be a new trial as to plaintiffs’ damages. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 420, 757 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mata-v-i-chera-sons-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack