From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mardakhayev v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 31, 2016
142 A.D.3d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

08-31-2016

Allen MARDAKHAYEV, etc., et al., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent.

Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellants. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing, Susan Greenberg, and Amanda Sue Nichols of counsel), for respondent.


Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellants.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing, Susan Greenberg, and Amanda Sue Nichols of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jimenez–Salta, J.), entered January 20, 2015, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“[A] jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Sokolik v. Pateman, 114 A.D.3d 839, 840, 981 N.Y.S.2d 111 ; see Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163 ). “Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors” (Sokolik v. Pateman, 114 A.D.3d at 840–841, 981 N.Y.S.2d 111 ; see Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145 ; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 133, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184 ). Here, the jury's determination that the defendant did not affirmatively create the alleged hazardous condition that caused the infant plaintiff to fall was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally Yarborough v. City of New York, 10 N.Y.3d 726, 853 N.Y.S.2d 261, 882 N.E.2d 873 ; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184 ).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

MASTRO, J.P., HALL, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mardakhayev v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 31, 2016
142 A.D.3d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Mardakhayev v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:Allen MARDAKHAYEV, etc., et al., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Aug 31, 2016

Citations

142 A.D.3d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
142 A.D.3d 691
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5910

Citing Cases

Martin v. Our Lady of Wisdom Reg'l Sch.

The defendants next contend that the verdict finding them 100% at fault in the happening of the accident was…