From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Magidenko v. Consolidated Edison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 2004
3 A.D.3d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-01177.

Decided January 26, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated January 16, 2003, as, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of its motions pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law and pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $175,000.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and Edward F.X. Hart of counsel), for appellant.

Mark J. Rayo, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: THOMAS A. ADAMS and STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant has the burden of demonstrating that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case ( see Lyons v. McCauley, 252 A.D.2d 516, 516-517). The court may grant the motion only if there is no rational process by which the factfinder could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant ( see Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d 553, 556; Farrukh v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 227 A.D.2d 440, 441).

The trial court correctly denied the motions by the City of New York pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law and pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence ( see Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 132-133). The City limits its appeal to the argument that in the absence of prior written notice, the plaintiffs were required, but failed, to establish a triable issue as to whether the City created the alleged defect in the road which caused the injured plaintiff to trip and fall. Contrary to this argument, the testimony of Sherry Johnson, an employee of the Department of Transportation Litigation Support Unit, sufficed to raise an inference that established by circumstantial evidence that the alleged defective condition which caused the injured plaintiff to trip and fall was created by the City's negligent repair of the roadway ( see Maggio v. City of New York, 305 A.D.2d 554, 555).

SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Magidenko v. Consolidated Edison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 2004
3 A.D.3d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Magidenko v. Consolidated Edison

Case Details

Full title:ANETA MAGIDENKO, ET AL., Respondents, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON, Defendant…

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

Date published: Jan 26, 2004

Citations

3 A.D.3d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
770 N.Y.S.2d 644

Citing Cases

Gelfand v. Adjo Contracting Corp.

In reviewing the Supreme Court's determination, made after a nonjury trial, our authority "is as broad as…

Gennaro v. Locascio

The trial court properly denied the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law.…