Roman v. Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roman v. Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp.

63 A.D.3d 1136, 882 N.Y.S.2d 270

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

DecidedJune 30, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 1136 (Roman v. Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp.) 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

Roman v. Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp., 63 A.D.3d 1136, 882 N.Y.S.2d 270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants I. Gold Corp., doing business as I. Gold & Sons, Abinal Pinero, and Monroe Truck Leasing appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated November 13, 2007, which, upon remittitur from this Court limited to a new trial on the issue of damages for future medical expenses (Roman v I. Gold Corp., 35 AD3d 833 [2006]), and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained damages for future medical expenses in the principal sum of $306,200, 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 or, in the alternative, to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them, as reduced pursuant to Insurance Law § 5104, in the principal sum of $264,938.43.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Before granting a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must conclude that there is “simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead [1137]*1137rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; see Firmes v Chase Manhattan Auto. Fin. Corp., 50 AD3d 18, 29 [2008]). Here, there is a rational view of the evidence that supports the jury’s award for future medical expenses (see Ayala v Lindy’s Dispatching, Inc., 54 AD3d 699, 700 [2008]; White v Kim, 29 AD3d 685 [2006]; Martelli v City of New York, 219 AD2d 586 [1995]). Moreover, the jury’s award for future medical expenses was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, and thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Scibelli v Eugene G. Herman, D.M.D., P.C., 49 AD3d 627 [2008]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Belen and Lott, 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 defendants I. Gold Corp., doing business as I. Gold & Sons, Abinal Pinero, and Monroe Truck Leasing appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated November 13, 2007, which, upon remittitur from this Court limited to a new trial on the issue of damages for future medical expenses (Roman v I. Gold Corp., 35 AD3d 833 [2006]), and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained damages for future medical expenses in the principal sum of $306,200, 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 or, in the alternative, to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them, as reduced pursuant to Insurance Law § 5104, in the principal sum of $264,938.43.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Before granting a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must conclude that there is “simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead [1137]*1137rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; see Firmes v Chase Manhattan Auto. Fin. Corp., 50 AD3d 18, 29 [2008]). Here, there is a rational view of the evidence that supports the jury’s award for future medical expenses (see Ayala v Lindy’s Dispatching, Inc., 54 AD3d 699, 700 [2008]; White v Kim, 29 AD3d 685 [2006]; Martelli v City of New York, 219 AD2d 586 [1995]). Moreover, the jury’s award for future medical expenses was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, and thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Scibelli v Eugene G. Herman, D.M.D., P.C., 49 AD3d 627 [2008]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 1136, 882 N.Y.S.2d 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roman-v-brooklyn-navy-yard-development-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack