Rodriguez v. Baranek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Baranek

140 A.D.3d 407, 30 N.Y.S.3d 877

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

DecidedJune 2, 2016

Docket1348 110422/10

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 407 (Rodriguez v. Baranek) 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

Rodriguez v. Baranek, 140 A.D.3d 407, 30 N.Y.S.3d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered October 30, 2014, and from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 15, 2015, which, following a summary jury trial, denied plaintiffs motion for a mistrial and dismissed the case, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Plaintiffs posttrial motion, although framed as a motion for a mistrial based on an inconsistent verdict, in essence sought to set aside the jury’s verdict as against the weight of the evidence, and is therefore prohibited by the summary jury trial rules, which the parties agreed to follow. Moreover, those rules prohibit appeals, and therefore plaintiff’s appeal should be dismissed (Conrad, v Alicea, 117 AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2014], lv dismissed 24 NY3d 946 [2014]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Gische, Webber and Kahn, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered October 30, 2014, and from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 15, 2015, which, following a summary jury trial, denied plaintiffs motion for a mistrial and dismissed the case, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Plaintiffs posttrial motion, although framed as a motion for a mistrial based on an inconsistent verdict, in essence sought to set aside the jury’s verdict as against the weight of the evidence, and is therefore prohibited by the summary jury trial rules, which the parties agreed to follow. Moreover, those rules prohibit appeals, and therefore plaintiff’s appeal should be dismissed (Conrad, v Alicea, 117 AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2014], lv dismissed 24 NY3d 946 [2014]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Gische, Webber and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 407, 30 N.Y.S.3d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-baranek-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack