Reis v. William & John Street Associates, LLC

17 A.D.3d 558, 794 N.Y.S.2d 69, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4116
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 18, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 558 (Reis v. William & John Street Associates, LLC) 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
Reis v. William & John Street Associates, LLC, 17 A.D.3d 558, 794 N.Y.S.2d 69, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

[559]*559In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated March 16, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $95,500.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the verdict is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed.

The trial court should have granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law. When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the nonmoving party, by no rational process could the jury have found in her favor (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553 [1997]; Dolitsky v Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 AD2d 366 [1985]). The plaintiff did not establish that any of the defendants were negligent since she failed to demonstrate that they either created or had notice of the alleged defective condition which caused the elevator doors to close on her hand thereby injuring it. The plaintiff also failed to establish that the elevator was negligently maintained. Thus, the defendants’ motion should have been granted.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rice v. University of Rochester Medical Center
55 A.D.3d 1325 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 A.D.3d 558, 794 N.Y.S.2d 69, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reis-v-william-john-street-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2005.