Pomaro v. McKeon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pomaro v. McKeon

228 A.D.2d 572, 644 N.Y.2d 638, 644 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7097

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

DecidedJune 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 572 (Pomaro v. McKeon) 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

Pomaro v. McKeon, 228 A.D.2d 572, 644 N.Y.2d 638, 644 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court improperly set aside the jury’s verdict on the issue of liability (see, CPLR 4404; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493). Here, the jury "was presented with sharp issues of credibility and the accuracy of the witnesses’ testimony was for its determination” (Albero v Rogers, 143 AD2d 246; see also, Salazar v Fisher, 147 AD2d 470). The jury’s apportionment of liability in this case was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence. Thus, it should not have been disturbed (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129; see also, Patti v Fenimore, 181 AD2d 869).

However, the court correctly set aside the jury’s verdict with respect to damages since the award was against the weight of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, supra), and "deviate[d] materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501 [c]). Pizzuto, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Mc-Ginity JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court improperly set aside the jury’s verdict on the issue of liability (see, CPLR 4404; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493). Here, the jury "was presented with sharp issues of credibility and the accuracy of the witnesses’ testimony was for its determination” (Albero v Rogers, 143 AD2d 246; see also, Salazar v Fisher, 147 AD2d 470). The jury’s apportionment of liability in this case was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence. Thus, it should not have been disturbed (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129; see also, Patti v Fenimore, 181 AD2d 869).

However, the court correctly set aside the jury’s verdict with respect to damages since the award was against the weight of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, supra), and "deviate[d] materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501 [c]). Pizzuto, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Mc-Ginity JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 572, 644 N.Y.2d 638, 644 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pomaro-v-mckeon-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack