From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taal v. Krobatsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 26, 2001
281 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued February 22, 2001.

March 26, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered January 6, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

Gary P. Field, Huntington, N.Y., for appellants.

Robert P. Sweeney Associates (Rivkin, Radler Kremer, Uniondale, N Y [Merril S. Biscone] of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict, as the jury verdict in favor of the defendant could have been reached on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134).


Summaries of

Taal v. Krobatsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 26, 2001
281 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Taal v. Krobatsch

Case Details

Full title:KALILON TAAL, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. ROBERT A. KROBATSCH, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Mar 26, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
722 N.Y.S.2d 186

Citing Cases

Levinson & Santoro Elec. Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co.

Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a…