From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheridan v. Grigos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 2000
277 A.D.2d 217 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued October 13, 2000.

November 6, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Emilio, J.), entered March 8, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict finding them 75% at fault in the happening of the accident and the plaintiff 25% at fault, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in their favor as a matter of law, made at the close of the plaintiff's case, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them on the issue of liability.

Frank V. Merlino (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N Y [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for appellants.

John Ray Associates, Miller Place, N.Y. (John Ray of counsel), for respondent.

Before: WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"A landowner owes a duty to another on his land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition, considering all of the circumstances including the purpose of the person's presence and the likelihood of injury" (Macey v. Truman, 70 N.Y.2d 918, 919, as amended 71 N.Y.2d 949; see, Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233). To hold a defendant liable for damages, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition (see, Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967, 969; Pianoforini v. Kelties Bum Steer, 258 A.D.2d 634).

Contrary to the defendants' contention, there was sufficient evidence elicited at trial from which the jury could find that they were responsible for creating the hazardous condition on the premises. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss made at the end of the plaintiff's case as there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury (see, Campbell v. City of Elmira, 84 N.Y.2d 505, 509; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 132).


Summaries of

Sheridan v. Grigos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 2000
277 A.D.2d 217 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Sheridan v. Grigos

Case Details

Full title:TERESA SHERIDAN, RESPONDENT, v. ANTHONY GRIGOS, ET AL., APPELLANTS

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

Date published: Nov 6, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 217 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 448

Citing Cases

Tolas v. Fiumano

A jury verdict will be set aside as legally insufficient only if there is no valid line of reasoning and…

Thomas Poole v. Jane Ogiejko

All parties testified at their depositions that Ogiejko neither directed how the work was to be performed,…