From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harrington v. Halpert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 28, 1997
241 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

July 28, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law must be based upon the trial proceedings. Since the plaintiff's motion was based upon an event which occurred prior to the trial, there was no basis upon which the Supreme Court could grant the motion (see, Kozlowski v. City of Amersterdam, 111 A.D.2d 476; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C4404:2, at 460-461; Siegel, N.Y. Prac § 408, at 618 [2d ed]). We therefore find that the motion was properly denied, although for a different reason than that stated by the Supreme Court. In making this determination we make no finding as to whether or not the plaintiff's claims may properly be reviewed upon a timely direct appeal from any judgment entered in this action.

Miller, J. P., croy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Harrington v. Halpert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 28, 1997
241 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Harrington v. Halpert

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL HARRINGTON, Appellant, v. HEDY HALPERT et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jul 28, 1997

Citations

241 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
663 N.Y.S.2d 836

Citing Cases

Pedraza v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

The Court cannot usurp the jury's function and substitute its judgment for that of the jury's on an issue of…

Mueller v. Elderwood Health Care at Oakwood

In response to plaintiff's counsel's concern, defendants' counsel never acknowledged the existence of Exhibit…