Merl v. Adler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merl v. Adler

207 A.D.2d 323, 616 N.Y.S.2d 185

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 25, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered December 8, 1993, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict [324] as against the weight of the credible evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A motion to set aside a verdict as against the weight of the credible evidence invokes the court’s discretion to see that justice is done. The Trial Judge has had an opportunity to view the witnesses and the entire conduct of the trial, and "resolution of such a motion involves an application of that professional judgment gleaned from the Judge’s background and experience as a student, practitioner and Judge” (Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 135).

Here, the Trial Judge, following a painstaking review of the entire record, granted the motion. This determination must be accorded great respect (supra, at 137, citing, inter alia, Mann v Hunt, 283 App Div 140), and based upon our own review of the record we conclude it was not an abuse of discretion. We reject as without merit defendant’s claim that the Trial Justice impermissibly resolved credibility issues. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered December 8, 1993, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict [324] as against the weight of the credible evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A motion to set aside a verdict as against the weight of the credible evidence invokes the court’s discretion to see that justice is done. The Trial Judge has had an opportunity to view the witnesses and the entire conduct of the trial, and "resolution of such a motion involves an application of that professional judgment gleaned from the Judge’s background and experience as a student, practitioner and Judge” (Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 135).

Here, the Trial Judge, following a painstaking review of the entire record, granted the motion. This determination must be accorded great respect (supra, at 137, citing, inter alia, Mann v Hunt, 283 App Div 140), and based upon our own review of the record we conclude it was not an abuse of discretion. We reject as without merit defendant’s claim that the Trial Justice impermissibly resolved credibility issues. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Merl v. Adler, 207 A.D.2d 323, 616 N.Y.S.2d 185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

207 A.D.2d 323 (Merl v. Adler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related