Ramirez v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez v. City of Yonkers

272 A.D.2d 598, 708 N.Y.S.2d 629, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6023

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 598 (Ramirez 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

Ramirez v. City of Yonkers, 272 A.D.2d 598, 708 N.Y.S.2d 629, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered May 5, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a jury verdict on the issue of liability in favor of the defendant, and for a new trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the verdict is reinstated.

The law is settled that a verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside unless the evidence preponderates so heavily in the plaintiffs favor that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Here, the evidence presented sharp issues of fact regarding the location of the accident. The verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and the Supreme Court erred in setting it aside (see, Kupfer v Dalton, 169 AD2d 819). Friedmann, J. P., Krausman, Luciano and Schmidt, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered May 5, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a jury verdict on the issue of liability in favor of the defendant, and for a new trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the verdict is reinstated.

The law is settled that a verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside unless the evidence preponderates so heavily in the plaintiffs favor that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Here, the evidence presented sharp issues of fact regarding the location of the accident. The verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and the Supreme Court erred in setting it aside (see, Kupfer v Dalton, 169 AD2d 819). Friedmann, J. P., Krausman, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 598, 708 N.Y.S.2d 629, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack