You are here: / / Criteria for Setting Aside a Defense Verdict Not Met
,

Criteria for Setting Aside a Defense Verdict Not Met

The Fourth Department determined a verdict for the defense in a medical malpractice action should not have been set aside as against the weight of the evidence.  The court explained the criteria in the context of conflicting expert testimony:

“A verdict rendered in favor of a defendant may be successfully challenged as against the weight of the evidence only when the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . “Where a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” …, and the trial court “should not set aside [a] verdict unless it is palpably irrational or wrong” … . * * *

“Where, as here, conflicting expert testimony is presented, the jury is entitled to accept one expert’s opinion and reject that of another expert” …, and, unlike the trial court, we perceive no reason to disregard the testimony of defendants’ expert … . Lesio v Attardi, 2014 NY Slip Op 06705, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE HEARING, AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING THE MANDATORY “SEARCHING INQUIRY;” NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
ASKING DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS NERVOUS DEEMED A NONINCRIMINATING QUESTION, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBTAIN PERMISSION TO PRESENT TO A SECOND GRAND JURY RENDERING THE SECOND INDICTMENT VOID (FOURTH DEPT).
Duty to Defend
Probable Cause to Search Vehicle for a Weapon After Defendant’s Arrest Provided by Identified Citizen Informant
AFTER THE TRIAL HAD BEGUN AND WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED, THE JUDGE BECAME ILL AND SOUGHT A COVID TEST; AFTER THE NEGATIVE TEST-RESULT, THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSENT, DECLARED A MISTRIAL; THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER A CONTINUANCE OR THE SUBSTITUTION OF ANOTHER JUDGE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROHIBITION PRECLUDED RETRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
Evidence Insufficient to Support Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree—No One In Line of Fire

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Court Indicates a Certification Claimant Is Not Working Can Be a “Willful... The Language of the NYC Rent Control Law, Unlike the Language of the NYC Rent...