You are here: / / Supreme Court’s Grant of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Verdict Rever...
, ,

Supreme Court’s Grant of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Verdict Reversed

The First Department, over a substantial dissent, reversed Supreme Court’s grant of defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in a medical malpractice action:

“The question of whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence is discretion-laden, and the critical inquiry is whether the verdict rested on a fair interpretation of the evidence”…. On this record, we conclude that the Supreme Court erred in setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, because it cannot be said that the jury could not have reached its verdict upon any fair interpretation of the evidence…. The jury was entitled to resolve in plaintiff’s favor the conflict between the decedent’s and Dr. Conte’s testimony as to the nature and timing of her complaints and whether he later made referrals for CT scans that she declined.  Rose v Conte, 2013 NY Slip Op 04297, 1st Dept, 6-11-13

 

You might also like
BROWN PAPER ON TOP OF GREEN DUST ALLEGEDLY CONSTITUTED A SLIPPERY CONDITION ON THE FLOOR CAUSING PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
BROADER FLORIDA STATUTE COULD NOT PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT PRODUCE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY HIS ELECTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPTICAL CONFUSION OBSCURED A STEP, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Tenant Who Successfully Defended a Landlord’s Holdover Action Entitled to Attorney’s Fees
PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER HIRED TO BUILD A NEW STAIRCASE; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A PROTRUDING SCREW ON THE NEW STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE; THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, DID NOT SUPERVISE THE CONTRACTOR’S WORK, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​
CLAIMANT COULD NOT SEEK COMPENSATION FOR PERIODIC FLOODING OF HIS LOT UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW; THERE WAS NO DE JURE TAKING BY THE CITY, AND THE CRITERIA FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).
DOCTRINE OF DEFINITENESS WAS PROPERLY NOT APPLIED, DOLLAR-AMOUNT OF THE FEE AT ISSUE COULD BE DETERMINED BY INDUSTRY PRACTICE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Breach of Duty to Defend Precludes Reliance on Policy Exclusions Criteria for Fraudulent Inducement and Attachment