From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mudy v. Moore Business Forms, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 1999
262 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued February 25, 1999

June 7, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Moore Business Forms, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), entered March 26, 1998, upon a jury verdict finding it to be 40% at fault in the happening of the accident and awarding damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $1,250,000, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $500,000. The appeal from the judgment brings up for review so much of an order of the same court dated October 9, 1997, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Motter Printing Press Co., Inc., which was for summary judgment on its cross claims against the defendant Moore Business Forms, Inc., and to dismiss the cross claims of the defendant Moore Business Forms, Inc., against it.

Barry, McTiernan Moore, New York, N.Y. (Roger P. McTiernan, Sr., and Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Trief Olk, New York, N.Y. (Barbara E. Olk of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Morris, Duffy, Alonso, Faley, New York, N.Y. (Matthew J. Vitucci of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

Under the circumstances of this case, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant Motter Printing Press Co., Inc.

The jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Moore Business Forms, Inc. (hereinafter the appellant), was supported by legally sufficient evidence ( see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499). In addition, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, as the jury's determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134; Ryan v. Orange County Fair Speedway, 227 A.D.2d 609).

Regarding the denial of the appellant's request to charge the jury on the failure to warn, the evidence did not justify the requested charge. Furthermore, the charge given by the court adequately covered the material requested ( see, Brennan v. Commonwealth Bank Trust Co., 65 A.D.2d 636).

Finally, the trial court properly admitted evidence of prior accidents ( see, Sawyer v. Dreis Krump Mfg. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 328).


Summaries of

Mudy v. Moore Business Forms, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 1999
262 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Mudy v. Moore Business Forms, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:OSCAR MUDY, plaintiff-respondent, v. MOORE BUSINESS FORMS, INC.…

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

Date published: Jun 7, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 665

Citing Cases

MUDY v. MOORE BUSINESS FORMS, INC

Decided September 16, 1999 Appeal from (2d Dept: 262 A.D.2d 375). Motion for leave to appeal granted or…

Bongiorno v. Edelman

It cannot be said that the jury's finding in favor of the defendants could not be reached on any fair…