You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT...
,

PLAINTIFF’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S CASE WAS CLOSED; THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S ULTIMATE SUCCESS WAS UNLIKELY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, setting aside the verdict, and ordering a new trial, determined that the motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted prior to the close the plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff had brought an action against the City of New York pursuant to 42 USC 1983 alleging he had not received a fair trial:

The denial of a fair trial claim is a stand alone cause of action (see e.g. Garnett v Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F3d 265, 278-279 [2d Cir 2016]), which should not have been dismissed prior to the conclusion of plaintiff’s case in chief. CPLR 4401 permits a party to move for a directed verdict “after the close of the evidence presented by an opposing party with respect to such cause of action or issue.” “[I]t is reversible error to grant a motion for a directed verdict prior to the close of the party’s case against whom a directed verdict is sought” … , even if the ultimate success of a plaintiff’s cause of action is unlikely … . Cromedy v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07527, First Dept 10-22-19

 

You might also like
POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME OF THE STOP AND PURSUIT; THEREFORE THE WEAPON DISCARDED BY DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE A TESTIMONIAL HEARING BEFORE THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON (FIRST DEPT).
KESHA, A RECORDING ARTIST, MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HER MUSIC PRODUCER, GOTTWALD, HAD DRUGGED AND SEXUALLY ABUSED HER; GOTTWALD WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN HIS DEFAMATION ACTION; GOTTWALD DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE MALICE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A GENERAL-PURPOSE OR LIMITED-PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-TENANT’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED DEFENDANT-LANDLORD’S STIPULATION WITH THE PRIOR TENANT IN 2000 ILLEGALLY DECONTROLLED THE APARTMENT; THE MAJORITY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY THE ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO A DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT.
DEFENDANT’S SLOW MOVING TRUCK FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION, DIFFICULTY SEEING BECAUSE OF SUNLIGHT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A NON-NEGLIGENT EXCUSE (FIRST DEPT).
COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT CALCULATED ACCORDING TO THE FORMULA IN THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT, GUARDIAN ENTITLED ONLY TO REASONABLE COMPENSATION.

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

THE APPEAL OF AN UNPRESERVED ISSUE DID NOT PRESENT A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE... INSTALLING WINDOW SHADES IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF...