Tomasi v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tomasi v. City of New York

289 A.D.2d 563, 735 N.Y.S.2d 800, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13047

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 563 (Tomasi v. City of New York) 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

Tomasi v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 563, 735 N.Y.S.2d 800, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), entered November 27, 2000 which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

We agree with the appellants that the evidence at trial so preponderated in their favor that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746; Zhuravenko v Gjelaj, 261 AD2d 399; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). In light of our determination we need not reach the appellants’ remaining contentions. Luciano, J. P., Townes, Crane and Prudenti, 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 (Dabiri, J.), entered November 27, 2000 which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

We agree with the appellants that the evidence at trial so preponderated in their favor that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746; Zhuravenko v Gjelaj, 261 AD2d 399; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). In light of our determination we need not reach the appellants’ remaining contentions. Luciano, J. P., Townes, Crane and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 563, 735 N.Y.S.2d 800, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomasi-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack