Whitney v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whitney v. New York City Transit Authority

38 A.D.3d 766, 832 N.Y.S.2d 276

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 766 (Whitney v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Whitney v. New York City Transit Authority, 38 A.D.3d 766, 832 N.Y.S.2d 276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nelson, J.), entered November 3, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against her, in effect, dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court dated March 21, 2006, which denied her renewed motion pursuant to CELR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment in her favor as a matter of law, or alternatively, to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

To conclude as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, a court must determine that “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion 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 plaintiffs contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants (see Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460 [1984]), a valid line of reasoning existed for the jury’s determination that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply to this case and that the defendants were not negligent for the happening of the injury-producing event (see generally Morejon v Rais Constr. Co., 7 NY3d 203, 209 [2006]). Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Goldstein and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nelson, J.), entered November 3, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against her, in effect, dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court dated March 21, 2006, which denied her renewed motion pursuant to CELR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment in her favor as a matter of law, or alternatively, to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

To conclude as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, a court must determine that “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion 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 plaintiffs contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants (see Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460 [1984]), a valid line of reasoning existed for the jury’s determination that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply to this case and that the defendants were not negligent for the happening of the injury-producing event (see generally Morejon v Rais Constr. Co., 7 NY3d 203, 209 [2006]). Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Goldstein and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 766, 832 N.Y.S.2d 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack