Segnit v. Stuhr Gardens Housing Development Fund Co.

227 A.D.2d 612, 643 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6087
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 28, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 612 (Segnit v. Stuhr Gardens Housing Development Fund Co.) 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
Segnit v. Stuhr Gardens Housing Development Fund Co., 227 A.D.2d 612, 643 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated January 24, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

" ' " 'A verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside as against the weight of the credible evidence unless the preponderance in favor of the plaintiff was so great that the finding in favor of the defendant could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence’ ” ’ ” (Ciotti v New York Hosp., 221 AD2d 581; Cerasuoli v Brevetti, 166 AD2d 403, 404; Olsen v Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 AD2d 539, affd 9 NY2d 829; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Here, the jury was entitled to accept the testimony of the witnesses who actually observed the allegedly defective stair rail prior to the accident, but did not observe any corrosion. Thus, it cannot be said that the verdict in the defendants’ favor could not have been reached by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Furthermore, we find that the videotape of the allegedly defective stair rail, taken three days after the accident, constituted cumulative evidence, and its exclusion was at most harmless error (see, Tannen v Long Is. R. R., 215 AD2d 745; Walker v State of New York, 111 AD2d 164, 165). Balletta, J. P., Miller, Sullivan and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Barry v. Long Island University
8 A.D.3d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Leventhal v. Forest Hills Gardens Corp.
308 A.D.2d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Ateser v. Becker
272 A.D.2d 219 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 A.D.2d 612, 643 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segnit-v-stuhr-gardens-housing-development-fund-co-nyappdiv-1996.