McMurren v. Carter

3 Citing cases

  1. Index Fund, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N.A.

    580 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1978)   Cited 39 times
    In Index Fund, the insured, an investment company whose principal occupation was trading, was required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to obtain a fidelity bond against losses from larceny and embezzlement by its officers who had access to funds or securities.

    New York's conflict of law rules would direct us to apply New York's local law, Anderson v. Material Co-ordinating Agency, 63 N.Y.S.2d 324, 325 (Sup.Ct. 1946), pursuant to which a jury verdict should not be set aside unless it is clear from the record that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence. McMurren v. Carter, 46 A.D.2d 682, 360 N.Y.S.2d 66, aff'd 38 N.Y.2d 742, 381 N.Y.S.2d 42, 343 N.E.2d 760 (1975); Mallo v. Pembleton, 38 A.D.2d 874, 329 N.Y.S.2d 154 (1972). There were losses in securities transactions involving Hagopian in excess of the bond limits of $100,000 and it may be that an inference might have been drawn by the jury that they were all results of his fraud.

  2. Grimaldi v. Finch

    99 A.D.2d 920 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 11 times

    From the order denying plaintiff's post-trial motion, and the judgment ultimately entered upon the verdict, plaintiff appeals, contending that defendant failed to prove any culpable conduct on the part of plaintiff and that the damages fixed were inadequate. As to plaintiff's first contention, we recognize that the scope of our review is limited and in order for this court to disturb the jury's verdict as being contrary to the weight of the evidence, we must conclude that the jury could not have reached the conclusion it did upon any fair interpretation of the evidence ( Lincoln v Austic, 60 A.D.2d 487, 491, mot. for lv. to app den. 44 N.Y.2d 644; McMurren v Carter, 46 A.D.2d 682, aff'd. 38 N.Y.2d 742). We so conclude.

  3. Putnam v. Lamoreaux

    59 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)   Cited 5 times

    Upon the record there is no evidence which could have supported a jury finding that the defendant was not negligent. The court, over the exception of plaintiff, charged subdivision (a) of section 1180 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which requires a driver to operate a vehicle at a reasonable and prudent speed; however, the record was devoid of any proof that the plaintiff's speed was imprudent. Accordingly, that charge was error as to the plaintiff and prejudicial. It was undisputed that the plaintiff sustained compensable injuries as the result of the accident and the verdict is clearly against the weight of the evidence since it could not have been reached "upon any fair interpretation of the evidence" (McMurren v Carter, 46 A.D.2d 682, affd 38 N.Y.2d 742). Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.