Tribuzio v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tribuzio v. City of New York

15 A.D.3d 646, 789 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1993

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 646 (Tribuzio 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

Tribuzio v. City of New York, 15 A.D.3d 646, 789 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated October 23, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $350,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

For a court to find as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, it must “conclude that there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion [647]*647reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 464 [1984]), we discern that a valid line of reasoning existed for the jury’s determination that the defendants had constructive notice of the dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff to slip and fall (see Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625, 626 [1985]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Fisher, 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 appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated October 23, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $350,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

For a court to find as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, it must “conclude that there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion [647]*647reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 464 [1984]), we discern that a valid line of reasoning existed for the jury’s determination that the defendants had constructive notice of the dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff to slip and fall (see Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625, 626 [1985]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 646, 789 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tribuzio-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack