Reid v. Knorr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reid v. Knorr

272 A.D.2d 313, 707 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4819

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

DecidedMay 1, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 313 (Reid v. Knorr) 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

Reid v. Knorr, 272 A.D.2d 313, 707 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), which, [314]*314upon a jury verdict, and upon denying her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment in her favor as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict will be set aside as legally insufficient only if there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial (see, Roca v Gerardi, 243 AD2d 616). The evidence adduced at trial did not so favor the plaintiff that the jury’s verdict could not have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Smith, 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 medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), which, [314]*314upon a jury verdict, and upon denying her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment in her favor as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict will be set aside as legally insufficient only if there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial (see, Roca v Gerardi, 243 AD2d 616). The evidence adduced at trial did not so favor the plaintiff that the jury’s verdict could not have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 313, 707 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-knorr-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack