Robbins v. Wolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robbins v. Wolk

276 A.D.2d 683, 716 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10671

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 683 (Robbins v. Wolk) 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

Robbins v. Wolk, 276 A.D.2d 683, 716 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered November 9, 1999, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiffs case, is in favor of the defendant and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted.

To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law, a defendant has the burden of showing that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the plaintiff (see, Slutzky v Aron Estates Corp., 256 AD2d 402).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and affording him every favorable inference to be [684]*684drawn therefrom (see, Szczerbiak v Pilot, 90 NY2d 553), the defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There was sufficient evidence presented from which a rational juror could conclude that the defendant’s conduct was negligent. Under the circumstances, the trial court should have submitted the issue to the jury (see, Singer v Long Is. Light. Co., 211 AD2d 779). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Krausman 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered November 9, 1999, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiffs case, is in favor of the defendant and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted.

To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law, a defendant has the burden of showing that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the plaintiff (see, Slutzky v Aron Estates Corp., 256 AD2d 402).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and affording him every favorable inference to be [684]*684drawn therefrom (see, Szczerbiak v Pilot, 90 NY2d 553), the defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There was sufficient evidence presented from which a rational juror could conclude that the defendant’s conduct was negligent. Under the circumstances, the trial court should have submitted the issue to the jury (see, Singer v Long Is. Light. Co., 211 AD2d 779). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 683, 716 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbins-v-wolk-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack