First, we must determine whether the remarks of the defendant's counsel were improper, and, second, if we conclude that the remarks were improper, we must determine whether a new trial is necessary. See Palkimas v. Lavine , 71 Conn. App. 537, 546, 803 A.2d 329, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 919, 812 A.2d 863 (2002). A

The Plaintiff claims that the remarks of defense counsel were flagrantly prejudicial and effectively denied the Plaintiff a fair trial. In Palkimas v. Lavine, 71 Conn.App. 537, 545-48, cert. denied 262 Conn. 919 (2002), the court discussed the standards to be applied in determining whether a new trial is warranted because of improper comments by counsel to the jury in closing arguments. "The phraseology to describe whether there has been an abuse of discretion in not setting aside a verdict and granting a new trial is somewhat different as between civil and criminal cases. It is unclear whether the different phraseology connotes a different level of egregiousness before concluding there was an abuse of discretion in not granting a new trial.

” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co., 304 Conn. 679, 698–99, 41 A.3d 1013 (2012); see also Palkimas v. Lavine, 71 Conn.App. 537, 542, 803 A.2d 329 (abuse of discretion standard governs review of motion to set aside verdict predicated on “improper remarks of counsel”), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 919, 812 A.2d 863 (2002). The plaintiffs' allegation of misconduct is twofold.

The law is, when there has been an objection to remarks or a motion for a curative instruction or a motion to set aside the verdict or for a new trial, the court must determine whether or not the party making the request has suffered "manifest injury." Palkimas v. Lavine, 71 Conn.App. 537, 544, 803 A.2d 329 cert denied 262 Conn. 919, 812 A.2d 863 (2002). In support of their contention that this court should set aside the jury verdict, the defendants cite McKee v. Erikson, 37 Conn.App. 146, 654 A.2d 1263 cert. denied 233 Conn. 908 (1995).

" (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) In Palkimas v. Lavine, 71 Conn.App. 537, 545-48, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 919 (2002), cited by the court in Medes, the court discussed the standards to be applied in determining whether a new trial is warranted because of comments by counsel to the jury in closing arguments. "The phraseology to describe whether there has been an abuse of discretion in not setting aside a verdict and granting a new trial is somewhat different as between civil and criminal cases. It is unclear whether the different phraseology connotes a different level of egregiousness before concluding there was an abuse of discretion in not granting a new trial.

The court's instructions to the jury concerning circumstances under which this form was to be used were not excepted to. No interrogatories were requested thus the application of the general verdict rule which presumes that all disputed issues are found in favor of the prevailing party compels the conclusion that the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant was negligent. Palkimas v. Lavine, 71 Conn. App. 537. The claim that the court erred when it refused to allow plaintiff to introduce evidence that the defendant made a claim for personal injuries in the instant accident as well on the occasion of prior accidents is without merit.

Decided December 4, 2002 The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 71 Conn. App. 537 (AC 21434), is denied. PALMER, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

First, we must determine whether the remarks of the defendant's counsel were improper, and, second, if we conclude that the remarks were improper, we must determine whether a new trial is necessary. See Palkimas v. Lavine, 71 Conn. App. 537, 546, 803 A.2d 329, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 919, 812 A.2d 863 (2002). A

"In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given to the correctness of the [trial] court's ruling." Palkimas v. Lavine , 71 Conn. App. 537, 544, 803 A.2d 329, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 919, 812 A.2d 863 (2002).Indeed, "[t]he trial court should not set [aside] a verdict ... where there [is] some evidence upon which the jury [reasonably could have] based its verdict, but [the court should set aside the verdict] where the manifest injustice of the verdict is so plain and palpable as clearly to denote that some mistake was made by the jury in the application of legal principles, or as to justify the suspicion that [the jurors] or some of them were influenced by prejudice, corruption or partiality."

"When a verdict should be set aside because of improper remarks of counsel . . . the remedy is a new trial." Palkimas v. Lavine, 71 Conn. App. 537, 542, 803 A.2d 329, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 919, 812 A.2d 863 (2002). In seeking a new trial on this ground, a party's burden of proof is twofold.