Rusgo v. New York City Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rusgo v. New York City Board of Education

300 A.D.2d 563, 752 N.Y.S.2d 538

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 563 (Rusgo v. New York City Board of Education) 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

Rusgo v. New York City Board of Education, 300 A.D.2d 563, 752 N.Y.S.2d 538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered June 11, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant New York City Board of Education and against them on the issue of liability, is in favor of that defendant and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, supra).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Krausman, J.P., McGinity, Schmidt and Mastro, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered June 11, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant New York City Board of Education and against them on the issue of liability, is in favor of that defendant and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, supra).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Krausman, J.P., McGinity, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 563, 752 N.Y.S.2d 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rusgo-v-new-york-city-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack