Wright v. Estate of Tartaglia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. Estate of Tartaglia

21 A.D.3d 1098, 801 N.Y.S.2d 156

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 1098 (Wright v. Estate of Tartaglia) 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

Wright v. Estate of Tartaglia, 21 A.D.3d 1098, 801 N.Y.S.2d 156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated March 22, 2004, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict on the issue of liability as against the weight of the evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Based upon the evidence presented at trial, it cannot be said that the jury’s verdict in the defendant’s favor was against the weight of the evidence and could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; see also Harris v Armstrong, 64 NY2d 700 [1984]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated March 22, 2004, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict on the issue of liability as against the weight of the evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Based upon the evidence presented at trial, it cannot be said that the jury’s verdict in the defendant’s favor was against the weight of the evidence and could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; see also Harris v Armstrong, 64 NY2d 700 [1984]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 1098, 801 N.Y.S.2d 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-estate-of-tartaglia-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack