From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jennings v. DeFreitas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 29, 2001
283 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued April 30, 2001.

May 29, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), entered August 9, 2000, which, upon the denial of their motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404, to set aside a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Harry Katz, P.C. (Paul F. McAloon, P.C., New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellants.

Lewis, Johs, Avallone, Aviles Kaufman, LLP, Melville, N Y (Michael G. Krozynski of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, NANCY E. SMITH and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, as it was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Farrell v. Lewarn, 275 A.D.2d 760; White v. Rubinstein, 255 A.D.2d 378). The jury's finding that the defendant was negligent but that his negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident is not inconsistent (see, Campbell v. Crimi, 267 A.D.2d 343; Miglino v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 451).

BRACKEN, P.J., O'BRIEN, SMITH and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jennings v. DeFreitas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 29, 2001
283 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Jennings v. DeFreitas

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT JENNINGS, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. HAROLD DeFREITAS, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: May 29, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
725 N.Y.S.2d 232

Citing Cases

Reese v. New York City Board of Education

The contention that the verdict was inconsistent is unpreserved for appellate review as the plaintiffs failed…