Poulakis v. Town of Orangetown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Poulakis v. Town of Orangetown

29 A.D.3d 882, 814 N.Y.S.2d 539

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

DecidedMay 23, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 882 (Poulakis v. Town of Orangetown) 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

Poulakis v. Town of Orangetown, 29 A.D.3d 882, 814 N.Y.S.2d 539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), entered October 21, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $108,624.00.

[883]*883Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 may be granted when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which a jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). In considering such a motion, “the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmovant” (Hand v Field, 15 AD3d 542, 543 [2005]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff’s accident was proximately caused by the defendant’s negligence in failing to secure a manhole on its property.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Covello, 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, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), entered October 21, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $108,624.00.

[883]*883Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 may be granted when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which a jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). In considering such a motion, “the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmovant” (Hand v Field, 15 AD3d 542, 543 [2005]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff’s accident was proximately caused by the defendant’s negligence in failing to secure a manhole on its property.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 882, 814 N.Y.S.2d 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poulakis-v-town-of-orangetown-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack