Pizzi v. Anzalone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pizzi v. Anzalone

261 A.D.2d 374, 689 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4514

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

DecidedMay 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 374 (Pizzi v. Anzalone) 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

Pizzi v. Anzalone, 261 A.D.2d 374, 689 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated March 5, 1998, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to set aside a verdict in their favor and against him, and ordered a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the posttrial admissions by the defendant Anthony Anzalone that he testified untruthfully at trial as to factual matters material to the verdict, the Supreme Court did not [375]*375improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to set aside the verdict on the ground that it had been procured by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct, and ordering a new trial (see, LaPaglia v Sears Roebuck & Co., 143 AD2d 173; Trapp v American Trading & Prod. Corp., 66 AD2d 515; Cohen v Crimenti, 24 AD2d 587). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated March 5, 1998, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to set aside a verdict in their favor and against him, and ordered a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the posttrial admissions by the defendant Anthony Anzalone that he testified untruthfully at trial as to factual matters material to the verdict, the Supreme Court did not [375]*375improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to set aside the verdict on the ground that it had been procured by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct, and ordering a new trial (see, LaPaglia v Sears Roebuck & Co., 143 AD2d 173; Trapp v American Trading & Prod. Corp., 66 AD2d 515; Cohen v Crimenti, 24 AD2d 587). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 374, 689 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pizzi-v-anzalone-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack