From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carotenuto v. Harran Transportation Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1996
226 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 1, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff was injured when the bus on which she was a passenger skidded off the road when the bus changed lanes in an attempt to pass a slower moving snow plow. We reject the plaintiff's contention that the jury's verdict in favor of the defendants is against the weight of the evidence. In determining whether to set aside a jury's verdict in favor of the defendant as against the weight of the evidence, the standard is whether the evidence preponderates so greatly in the plaintiff's favor that the verdict could not have been reached based upon any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Grassi v. Ulrich, 87 N.Y.2d 954; Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744; see also, Tarantino v. Vanguard Leasing Co., 187 A.D.2d 422). In making this determination, great deference is given a jury's determination in negligence cases in which the verdict is in favor of the defendant ( see, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129). There was evidence adduced at the trial in this case that the defendant bus driver lost control of the bus on an unanticipated patch of snow or ice. Thus, the jury's determination that the defendants were not negligent is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Tarantino v. Vanguard Leasing Co., supra). Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Carotenuto v. Harran Transportation Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1996
226 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Carotenuto v. Harran Transportation Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DONNA CAROTENUTO, Appellant, v. HARRAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 1, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
640 N.Y.S.2d 209

Citing Cases

Whelan v. Krikorian

We reverse. On this record, "[i]t cannot be said that the jury's verdict of no damages was either without…

Stern v. Chang

Because the jury here could reasonably find "that the accident was due . . . to the defendant's skidding on a…