From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riggio v. New Creation Fellowship of Buffalo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 29, 1998
249 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 29, 1998

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J. — Set Aside Verdict.

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Fallon, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' motion to set aside the jury verdict. A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of evidence unless it is palpably wrong and there is no fair interpretation of the evidence to support the jury's conclusion or the verdict is not one reasonable persons could have rendered after receiving conflicting evidence (see, Petrovski v. Fornes, 125 A.D.2d 972, 973, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 608). A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury verdict of no cause of action. Based upon the conflicting proof adduced at trial, the jury could rationally conclude that the preponderance of the evidence did not support plaintiffs' version of the accident (see, Felgenhauer v. Atlantic Pac. Tea Co., 94 A.D.2d 737).

We reject plaintiffs' contention that the court improperly permitted defendant to exercise its peremptory challenges to exclude two of the three black prospective jurors. Defendant's attorney offered a race-neutral explanation for those challenges, and the court's acceptance of that explanation as nonpretextual is entitled to great deference (see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356, affd 500 U.S. 352; Ancrum v. Eisenberg, 206 A.D.2d 324, 326, appeal dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 853, 1027). Further, the court was entitled to reject the contrary determination of the Judicial Hearing Officer who supervised jury selection with respect to one of the challenged jurors (see, Repka v. Repka, 186 A.D.2d 119, 122-123).

Finally, we conclude that the court's charge to the jury on the issue of defendant's notice of the allegedly defective condition adequately conveyed the applicable law (see, McCluskey v. West Bradford Corp., 177 A.D.2d 744, 745-746, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 753; Clinton v. Johnson, 167 A.D.2d 772, 772-773).


Summaries of

Riggio v. New Creation Fellowship of Buffalo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 29, 1998
249 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Riggio v. New Creation Fellowship of Buffalo

Case Details

Full title:CARMELA RIGGIO et al., as Parents and Natural Guardians of NICOLE RIGGIO…

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

Date published: Apr 29, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 397

Citing Cases

Wisholek v. Douglas

We reject defendants' contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. A jury verdict…

Stumpf v. Brinks

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained while riding on the…