From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Higbie Construction, Ltd. v. IPI Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 1990
159 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 12, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Saladino, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the defendants' motion which was to set aside the jury verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404 is denied, the verdict is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment on the verdict.

As a general rule, a trial court should exercise its discretionary power to set aside a jury verdict with considerable caution and only where the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 498; Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 136). While the trial court's determination to set aside the verdict is to be accorded great weight (see, Nicastro v Park, supra), we find that the jury's verdict herein is fully supported by the weight of the evidence and should not have been set aside. The uncontradicted evidence adduced at trial showed that the defendant IPI Industries, Inc. (hereinafter IPI) admitted in writing that it owed the plaintiff Higbie Construction, Ltd. (hereinafter Higbie) $98,304.64. In contrast, IPI did not present any witnesses nor produce any documentary evidence to substantiate its claims that it was entitled to certain deductions and chargebacks as an offset to the amount it owed to Higbie. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Higbie finding that it was entitled to recover from IPI the sum of $83,788 ($98,304.64 less a sum of approximately $14,516 which had been awarded to Higbie against IPI pursuant to a prior judgment in its favor).

On remittitur, the trial court should award Higbie interest at the statutory rate from January 3, 1986, the date of the initial demand for payment.

Higbie is not entitled an award of attorney's fees since IPI's defenses were not "without substantial basis in fact or law" (State Finance Law § 137 [c]). Kooper, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Higbie Construction, Ltd. v. IPI Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 1990
159 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Higbie Construction, Ltd. v. IPI Industries, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HIGBIE CONSTRUCTION, LTD., Appellant, v. IPI INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 12, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
552 N.Y.S.2d 654

Citing Cases

Tolas v. Fiumano

In this case, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination that the defendants created…

Rush v. New York City Transit Authority

The question of whether a jury verdict should be set aside as against the weight of the evidence pursuant to…