Grassiv.Ulrich

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Court of Appeals of the State of New YorkFeb 20, 1996
87 N.Y.2d 954 (N.Y. 1996)
87 N.Y.2d 954664 N.E.2d 499641 N.Y.S.2d 588

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Williams v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

    …By failing to move pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence, the…

  • Tsimbalenko v. Irizarry

    …For a reviewing court to determine that a jury's verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, it…

lock 84 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

Decided February 20, 1996

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Joseph P. Torraca, J.

Cynthia Feathers, Saratoga Springs, for appellants.

Horigan, Horigan, Pennock Lombardo, P.C., Amsterdam (James A. Lombardo of counsel), for respondents.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

Plaintiff Paul Grassi commenced this personal injury action against defendants for injuries to his neck, left arm and left hand allegedly sustained after the car driven by defendant Kurt Ulrich collided with plaintiff's vehicle. Defendants stipulated that Ulrich's negligence caused the accident, but presented expert proof to establish that plaintiff's injuries were the result of a preexisting degenerative condition and not the accident, as plaintiff's experts opined. The jury returned a verdict in defendants' favor, and the trial court denied plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence.

The Appellate Division erred in curtailing its review of the denial of that motion after simply finding record evidence to support the jury's verdict ( see, Lolik v Big V Supermarket, 86 N.Y.2d 744). Having found sufficient evidence to support the verdict, the Court was then required to consider the conflicting medical evidence presented by plaintiff and determine "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"'" ( id., at 746, quoting Moffatt v Moffatt, 86 A.D.2d 864, affd 62 N.Y.2d 875).

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE and CIPARICK concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.


An alternative to Lexis that does not break the bank.

Casetext does more than Lexis for less than $65 per month.