Merkinger v. Jo-Mi Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merkinger v. Jo-Mi Corp.

270 A.D.2d 236, 704 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2486

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 236 (Merkinger v. Jo-Mi Corp.) 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

Merkinger v. Jo-Mi Corp., 270 A.D.2d 236, 704 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered November 16, 1998, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of evidence, to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial, with costs to abide the event.

Upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, who is entitled to every favorable inference, there is a rational basis upon which the jury could have found for the plaintiff (see, Rhabb v New York City Hous. Auth., 41 NY2d 200). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Florio and H. Miller, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered November 16, 1998, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of evidence, to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial, with costs to abide the event.

Upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, who is entitled to every favorable inference, there is a rational basis upon which the jury could have found for the plaintiff (see, Rhabb v New York City Hous. Auth., 41 NY2d 200). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 236, 704 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merkinger-v-jo-mi-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack