Wesolek v. Tops Markets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wesolek v. Tops Markets, Inc.

255 A.D.2d 972, 680 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12240

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 972 (Wesolek v. Tops Markets, Inc.) 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

Wesolek v. Tops Markets, Inc., 255 A.D.2d 972, 680 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs’ mo[973]*973tion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) and setting aside the jury verdict of no cause of action as against the weight of the evidence. The standard for determining whether a jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence is whether “ ‘ “the evidence so preponderate [d] in favor of the [plaintiff] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” ’ ” (Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746). In this case, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s finding that defendant was not negligent. Although defendant may have had actual notice of a puddle of liquid created by a broken bottle in defendant’s store, there was credible evidence that the puddle existed for no longer than 5 to 10 minutes before defendant’s employee began mopping it up, and, while he was mopping it, plaintiff Bridget Wesolek slipped in the puddle. Thus, the alleged absence of “wet floor” signs or barricades around the puddle does not render the jury’s verdict against the weight of the evidence (cf., Van Stry v State of New York, 104 AD2d 553, 554). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J. — Set Aside Verdict.) Present— Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs’ mo[973]*973tion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) and setting aside the jury verdict of no cause of action as against the weight of the evidence. The standard for determining whether a jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence is whether “ ‘ “the evidence so preponderate [d] in favor of the [plaintiff] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” ’ ” (Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746). In this case, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s finding that defendant was not negligent. Although defendant may have had actual notice of a puddle of liquid created by a broken bottle in defendant’s store, there was credible evidence that the puddle existed for no longer than 5 to 10 minutes before defendant’s employee began mopping it up, and, while he was mopping it, plaintiff Bridget Wesolek slipped in the puddle. Thus, the alleged absence of “wet floor” signs or barricades around the puddle does not render the jury’s verdict against the weight of the evidence (cf., Van Stry v State of New York, 104 AD2d 553, 554). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J. — Set Aside Verdict.) Present— Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 972, 680 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wesolek-v-tops-markets-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack