SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
April 20, 2012
NORA OSMON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
ISKALO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DEFENDANT, AND H & M PLUMBING & MECHANICAL CONTRACTING, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered September 23, 2010 in a personal injury action.
Osmon v Iskalo Dev. Corp.
Decided on April 20, 2012
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that part of the motion of plaintiff to set aside the jury verdict with respect to defendant H & M Plumbing & Mechanical Contracting, Inc.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the post-trial motion is denied in its entirety and the verdict with respect to defendant H & M Plumbing & Mechanical Contracting, Inc. is reinstated.
Memorandum: Defendant H & M Plumbing & Mechanical Contracting, Inc. (H & M) appeals from an order granting that part of plaintiff's post-trial motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of H & M. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from, deny the post-trial motion in its entirety and reinstate the jury verdict with respect to H & M. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she tripped over a ladder at property owned by defendant Iskalo Development Corporation (Iskalo). Iskalo entered into a contract with H & M to perform plumbing work on the premises. It is undisputed that plaintiff tripped over a ladder owned by H & M, but the jury's conclusion that H & M was not negligent is supported by the record. Although the evidence established that the ladder was marked as belonging to H & M, it was unclear who placed the ladder in the hallway where plaintiff fell. The jury was entitled to determine that an employee of H & M did not place the ladder in the hallway or that the ladder's brief and slight incursion into the hallway was not a dangerous condition. Thus, we conclude that the jury's determination is one that reasonably could have been rendered based on the evidence presented at trial (see Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720-721).
Entered: April 20, 2012
Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.