Pedroza v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pedroza v. City of New York

289 A.D.2d 315, 734 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11939

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 315 (Pedroza v. City of New York) 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

Pedroza v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 315, 734 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated July 24, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal amount of $160,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict may be set aside only where “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; see, Kaminski v Modern Italian Bakery, 270 AD2d 232; Simmons v East Nassau Med. Group, 260 AD2d 463). The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Great deference must be accorded to the fact-finding function of the jury, and we find no reason to disturb its determination, as the jury was in the best position to review the witnesses’ testimony and assess their credibility (see, Teneriello v Travelers Cos., 264 AD2d 772).

In light of our determination, the plaintiffs remaining contention is academic. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Cozier, 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 defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated July 24, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal amount of $160,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict may be set aside only where “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; see, Kaminski v Modern Italian Bakery, 270 AD2d 232; Simmons v East Nassau Med. Group, 260 AD2d 463). The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Great deference must be accorded to the fact-finding function of the jury, and we find no reason to disturb its determination, as the jury was in the best position to review the witnesses’ testimony and assess their credibility (see, Teneriello v Travelers Cos., 264 AD2d 772).

In light of our determination, the plaintiffs remaining contention is academic. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 315, 734 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pedroza-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack