Raciti v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raciti v. City of Yonkers

307 A.D.2d 309, 762 N.Y.S.2d 519

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

DecidedJuly 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 309 (Raciti v. City of Yonkers) 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

Raciti v. City of Yonkers, 307 A.D.2d 309, 762 N.Y.S.2d 519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered February 25, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of her evidence, to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court correctly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was no rational process by which the jury could have found in her favor (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; Colon v Ladalia, 301 AD2d 621 [2003]). The plaintiff failed to present any evidence that, under the circumstances of this case, the conduct of the defendant’s employees fell “below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk” (Morris v Troy Sav. Bank, 32 AD2d 237, 238 [1969], affd 28 NY2d 619 [1971]; see McLean v Triboro Coach Corp., 302 NY 49, 51 [1950]). Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Townes, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered February 25, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of her evidence, to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court correctly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was no rational process by which the jury could have found in her favor (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; Colon v Ladalia, 301 AD2d 621 [2003]). The plaintiff failed to present any evidence that, under the circumstances of this case, the conduct of the defendant’s employees fell “below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk” (Morris v Troy Sav. Bank, 32 AD2d 237, 238 [1969], affd 28 NY2d 619 [1971]; see McLean v Triboro Coach Corp., 302 NY 49, 51 [1950]). Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 309, 762 N.Y.S.2d 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raciti-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack