Weber v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weber v. City of New York

101 A.D.2d 757, 475 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18395

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

DecidedMay 10, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 101 A.D.2d 757 (Weber 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

Weber v. City of New York, 101 A.D.2d 757, 475 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (I. Silbowitz, J.), entered June 6,1983, vacating jury verdict and ordering a new trial as to all parties and issues, is unanimously reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and plaintiffs’ motion to vacate and set aside the jury verdict is denied, and the jury’s verdict is reinstated, and judgment is directed to be entered in accordance therewith, f The determination of “the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant * * * bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages” (CPLR 1411), generally, and on the facts of this case, presents a question of fact for determination by the triers of fact, here the jury. On the evidence, the jury’s determination of this proportion was within the permissible, reasonable range of inference of fact. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The order vacating the verdict was thus an abuse of discretion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Silverman and Alexander, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (I. Silbowitz, J.), entered June 6,1983, vacating jury verdict and ordering a new trial as to all parties and issues, is unanimously reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and plaintiffs’ motion to vacate and set aside the jury verdict is denied, and the jury’s verdict is reinstated, and judgment is directed to be entered in accordance therewith, f The determination of “the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant * * * bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages” (CPLR 1411), generally, and on the facts of this case, presents a question of fact for determination by the triers of fact, here the jury. On the evidence, the jury’s determination of this proportion was within the permissible, reasonable range of inference of fact. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The order vacating the verdict was thus an abuse of discretion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Silverman and Alexander, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 757, 475 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack