Reichert v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reichert v. City of New York

17 A.D.3d 654, 792 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedApril 25, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 654 (Reichert 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

Reichert v. City of New York, 17 A.D.3d 654, 792 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated August 27, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention on appeal, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, and the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]; Kiley v Almar, Inc., 1 AD3d 570 [2003]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).

Under the facts of this case, any error in failing to specifically charge the jury that a defense witness was an interested witness does not warrant reversal (see Palazzo v Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 10 AD3d 711 [2004]; People v Russo, 173 AD2d 576, 577 [1991]; Perrin v Winne, 123 AD2d 610 [1986]). H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Crane, 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 plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated August 27, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention on appeal, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, and the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]; Kiley v Almar, Inc., 1 AD3d 570 [2003]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).

Under the facts of this case, any error in failing to specifically charge the jury that a defense witness was an interested witness does not warrant reversal (see Palazzo v Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 10 AD3d 711 [2004]; People v Russo, 173 AD2d 576, 577 [1991]; Perrin v Winne, 123 AD2d 610 [1986]). H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 654, 792 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reichert-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack