Miles v. Italiano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miles v. Italiano

245 A.D.2d 552, 666 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13353

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 552 (Miles v. Italiano) 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

Miles v. Italiano, 245 A.D.2d 552, 666 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, (1) the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), entered September 18, 1996, as, upon a determination made at [553]*553the close of the plaintiffs case granting the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, dismissed the complaint, and (2) the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same judgment as dismissed their affirmative defenses.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, as the defendants are not aggrieved by the judgment (see, CPLR 5511; Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co., 68 NY2d 465); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

Giving the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference to be reasonably drawn from the evidence, there was no rational basis upon which the jury might have concluded that the defendants were liable for the plaintiffs alleged injuries (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104; Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494; Campbell v City of Elmira, 84 NY2d 505). Accordingly, the court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 4401; Rhabb v New York City Hous. Auth., 41 NY2d 200). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Gold-stein and Lerner, 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, (1) the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), entered September 18, 1996, as, upon a determination made at [553]*553the close of the plaintiffs case granting the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, dismissed the complaint, and (2) the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same judgment as dismissed their affirmative defenses.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, as the defendants are not aggrieved by the judgment (see, CPLR 5511; Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co., 68 NY2d 465); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

Giving the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference to be reasonably drawn from the evidence, there was no rational basis upon which the jury might have concluded that the defendants were liable for the plaintiffs alleged injuries (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104; Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494; Campbell v City of Elmira, 84 NY2d 505). Accordingly, the court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 4401; Rhabb v New York City Hous. Auth., 41 NY2d 200). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Gold-stein and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 552, 666 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miles-v-italiano-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack