You are here: / / Jury’s Conclusion the School Negligently Supervised Students But...
, ,

Jury’s Conclusion the School Negligently Supervised Students But the Negligent Supervision Was Not the Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries Was Supported by the Evidence/Inconsistent Verdict Issue Not Preserved Because Not Raised Before the Jury Was Discharged

The Second Department noted that the issue whether the jury’s conclusion that the school district negligently supervised students who assaulted plaintiff but that the negligent supervision was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries was not preserved for appeal because no objection to the verdict was raised before the jury was discharged.  The court further noted that the jury’s conclusion was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (and therefore did not constitute an inconsistent verdict):

The plaintiffs contend that the jury verdict finding that the defendant … School District … negligently supervised certain students who assaulted the plaintiff …, but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of his injuries, is inconsistent and contrary to the weight of the evidence. Since the plaintiffs did not raise the issue of the claimed inconsistent jury verdict before the jury was discharged, that issue is not preserved for appellate review … . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ further contention, the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury’s finding that, while the School District negligently supervised these students, such negligence was not a proximate cause of [plaintiff’s] injuries, was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence… . LaMacchia v City of New Rochelle, 2015 NY Slip Op 01422, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

You might also like
THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT A DISPUTED ISSUE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THIS RELATED NEGLIGENCE ACTION AND ARGUING PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS PRESENTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED OVER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION, INDEMNIFICATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE, BUT THE CONTRIBUTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED, CRITERIA FOR INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).
THE 21-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE CRIME AND DEFENDANT’S ARREST DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY-TRIAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF INSTEAD OF AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWING IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION (WATER ON THE FLOOR IN FRONT OF A VEGETABLE DISPLAY WITH MELTING ICE) (SECOND DEPT).
DNA EVIDENCE RECOVERED AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER POINTED TO THE VICTIM’S BOYFRIEND AS THE PERPETRATOR; BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WAS A SINGLE IDENTIFICATION WITNESS WHO WAS 88 YEARS OLD AND HAD POOR VISION, THE DNA EVIDENCE MAY HAVE LED TO A MORE FAVORABLE VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained (Not Met Here)—Property... Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Work Done by...