Powell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Powell v. City of New York

116 A.D.3d 589, 983 N.Y.S.2d 787

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

DecidedApril 22, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 589 (Powell 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

Powell v. City of New York, 116 A.D.3d 589, 983 N.Y.S.2d 787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kibble F. Payne, J.), entered November 9, 2012, which granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in defendant’s favor, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

The jury’s verdict, that plaintiff’s slip-and-fall accident was not a proximate cause of her injuries, was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Grassi v Ulrich, 87 NY2d 954, 956 [1996]; Goldstein v Snyder, 3 AD3d 332, 334 [1st Dept 2004]). Indeed, plaintiff’s own doctor testified that her degenerative disc disease predated the accident, and that she had a normal neurological exam after the accident. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kibble F. Payne, J.), entered November 9, 2012, which granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in defendant’s favor, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

The jury’s verdict, that plaintiff’s slip-and-fall accident was not a proximate cause of her injuries, was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Grassi v Ulrich, 87 NY2d 954, 956 [1996]; Goldstein v Snyder, 3 AD3d 332, 334 [1st Dept 2004]). Indeed, plaintiff’s own doctor testified that her degenerative disc disease predated the accident, and that she had a normal neurological exam after the accident. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 589, 983 N.Y.S.2d 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack