Rykowski v. Automatic Data Press Mid-Atlantic, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rykowski v. Automatic Data Press Mid-Atlantic, Inc.

170 A.D.2d 592, 566 N.Y.S.2d 872, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2258

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 19, 1991·Published

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated April 17, 1989, which upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $82,500.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants contend that the jury’s verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree. For a court to conclude as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence "[i]t is necessary to first conclude that there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational men to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499). Upon a review of the record, it cannot be said that the jury’s verdict in this case was irrational.

We also reject the defendants’ claim that the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence. A jury verdict will not be set aside unless a court finds that the jurors could not have reached their verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nelson v City of New Rochelle, 154 AD2d 661; Taype v City of New York, 82 AD2d 648). A review of the evidence adduced in the present case demonstrates that there was a fair basis for the verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated April 17, 1989, which upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $82,500.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants contend that the jury’s verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree. For a court to conclude as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence "[i]t is necessary to first conclude that there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational men to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499). Upon a review of the record, it cannot be said that the jury’s verdict in this case was irrational.

We also reject the defendants’ claim that the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence. A jury verdict will not be set aside unless a court finds that the jurors could not have reached their verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nelson v City of New Rochelle, 154 AD2d 661; Taype v City of New York, 82 AD2d 648). A review of the evidence adduced in the present case demonstrates that there was a fair basis for the verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Rykowski v. Automatic Data Press Mid-Atlantic, Inc., 170 A.D.2d 592, 566 N.Y.S.2d 872, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

170 A.D.2d 592 (Rykowski v. Automatic Data Press Mid-Atlantic, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related