From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mandelovitz v. Rockofsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 2001
279 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

January 25, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), entered September 20, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict and for judgment in his favor as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Michael N. David, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Bilello Walisever, Woodbury, N.Y. (John A. Asta of counsel), for respondent Denise M. Rockofsky.

Montfort, Healy, McGuire Salley, Garden City, N.Y. (Donald S. Neumann, Jr., of counsel), for respondent General Electric Capital Auto Lease, Inc., s/h/a Gecal Corp.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, ACTING P.J., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The trial court properly denied the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict, as the jury finding in favor of the defendants could have been reached on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134). The defendants presented evidence that the defendant driver Denise M. Rockofsky saw the plaintiff walking in the roadway in the middle of the block on the double yellow line from half a block away, that she sounded her horn and slowed her vehicle, and that the plaintiff then suddenly turned and ran in front of her vehicle. Upon being presented with this evidence, which conflicted sharply with the plaintiff's testimony and thereby created a factual dispute, the jury "resolved the controversy in favor of the defendant[s] upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, [and] that finding should be sustained" (Nicastro v. Park, supra; see also, Justice v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 248 A.D.2d 443). The jury reasonably could have concluded that Rockofsky was not negligent (see, Justice v. Mendon Leasing Corp., supra; Shachnow v. Myers, 229 A.D.2d 432).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Mandelovitz v. Rockofsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 2001
279 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Mandelovitz v. Rockofsky

Case Details

Full title:ISRAEL MANDELOVITZ, APPELLANT, v. DENISE M. ROCKOFSKY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

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

Date published: Jan 25, 2001

Citations

279 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
719 N.Y.S.2d 672

Citing Cases

Marshall v. Wedge Mascot Corp.

We therefore modify the order accordingly. The court properly denied plaintiffs' motion seeking partial…