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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 2005·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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] reached 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] reached 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.

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

15 A.D.3d 646 (Tribuzio v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related