Miller v. Santarella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Santarella

134 A.D.3d 916, 20 N.Y.S.3d 894

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2015

Docket2014-06116

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 916 (Miller v. Santarella) 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

Miller v. Santarella, 134 A.D.3d 916, 20 N.Y.S.3d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Marrazzo, Jr., J.), dated March 26, 2014, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against her on the issue of liability, and upon the denial of her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendants and against her, in effect, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured on May 19, 2009, as a result of a collision on Staten Island between her vehicle and a vehicle owned by the defendant St. Vincent’s Catholic Medical Center and operated by the defendant AJ Santarella. She commenced this action against the defendants alleging that Santarella’s negligence was the cause of the accident and her injuries. After a jury trial on the issue of liability, the jury returned a verdict finding that Santarella was not negligent. The plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial was denied, and a judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff appeals.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion under CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. Inasmuch as a fair interpretation of the evidence supported the jury’s determination that Santarella was not negligent in the operation of the defendants’ vehicle, the verdict was not contrary to the weight *917 of the evidence (see Lolik v Big v Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Pelletier v Lahm, 111 AD 3d 807, 808 [2013], affd 24 NY3d 966 [2014]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Balkin, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, 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, Richmond County (Marrazzo, Jr., J.), dated March 26, 2014, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against her on the issue of liability, and upon the denial of her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendants and against her, in effect, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured on May 19, 2009, as a result of a collision on Staten Island between her vehicle and a vehicle owned by the defendant St. Vincent’s Catholic Medical Center and operated by the defendant AJ Santarella. She commenced this action against the defendants alleging that Santarella’s negligence was the cause of the accident and her injuries. After a jury trial on the issue of liability, the jury returned a verdict finding that Santarella was not negligent. The plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial was denied, and a judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff appeals.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion under CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. Inasmuch as a fair interpretation of the evidence supported the jury’s determination that Santarella was not negligent in the operation of the defendants’ vehicle, the verdict was not contrary to the weight *917 of the evidence (see Lolik v Big v Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Pelletier v Lahm, 111 AD 3d 807, 808 [2013], affd 24 NY3d 966 [2014]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Balkin, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 916, 20 N.Y.S.3d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-santarella-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack