Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Amajie v. Muchai

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

September 18, 2013

Richard Amajie, appellant,
v.
Rhesa M. Muchai, et al., respondents. Index No. 118/10

John J. Appell, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Newman and Newman LLP, Jamaica, N.Y. (Gregory J. Newman of counsel), for respondents.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ritholtz, J.), entered June 27, 2012, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him on the issue of liability, and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, only awarded him damages pursuant to the parties' high-low agreement.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746; Verizon N.Y., Inc. v Orange & Rockland Utils. Inc., 100 A.D.3d 983; Piazza v Corporate Bldrs. Group, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 1006, 1006-1007). Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499; Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 133). "It is for the jury to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference in this regard is accorded to the jury, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses" (Exarhouleas v Green 317 Madison, LLC, 46 A.D.3d 854, 855; see Salony v Mastellone, 72 A.D.3d 1060, 1061).

Applying these principles here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supported the jury's determination that the defendants were not negligent (see Geary v Church of St. Thomas Aquinas, 98 A.D.3d 646).

DILLON, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.