You are here: / Criteria for Setting Aside a Verdict As a Matter of Law and Setting Aside...

Search Results

/ ,

Criteria for Setting Aside a Verdict As a Matter of Law and Setting Aside a Verdict As Against the Weight of the Evidence Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant.  The facts were such that the jury could have found fault on the part of the plaintiff and the defendant, but the jury could not have found the defendant was free from fault.  Therefore, the trial court should not have directed a verdict for the plaintiff, but rather should have found the verdict against the weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial.  The Second Department explained the different criteria for setting aside a verdict as a matter of law and setting aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence:

CPLR 4404(a) provides, in relevant part, that: “[a]fter a trial of a cause of action or issue triable of right by a jury, upon the motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may set aside a verdict or any judgment entered thereon and direct that judgment be entered in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law or it may order a new trial of a cause of action or separable issue where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence” (CPLR 4404[a]). The Court of Appeals has recognized that the setting aside of a jury verdict as a matter of law and the setting aside of a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence involve two inquiries and two different standards … . For a court to conclude as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, it must find that there is “simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead . . . to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . However, “[w]hether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors” … . ” When 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'” … . “A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . Thus, rationality is the touchstone for legal sufficiency, while fair interpretation is the criterion for weight of the evidence … . Where a court makes a finding that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, it “leads to a directed verdict terminating the action without resubmission of the case to a jury” … . Where a court finds that a jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence, it grants a new trial … . Ramirez v Mezzacappa, 2014 NY Slip Op 06808, 2nd Dept 10-8-14

 

/ , , , ,

The Language of the NYC Rent Control Law, Unlike the Language of the NYC Rent Stabilization Law, Does Not Allow “Luxury Deregulation” After the Expiration of J-51 Tax Benefits

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeny, determined that the relevant provision of the NYC Rent and Rehabilitation Act (Rent Control Law or RCL) could not be interpreted to allow “luxury deregulation” of a rent-controlled apartment upon the expiration of “J-51” tax benefits.  “Luxury deregulation” refers to the removal of rent controls where the tenant can afford to pay market rates. The opinion focused upon the wording of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) versus the wording of the Rent Control Law (RCL) .  The RSL specifically allows the owner of an apartment to apply for luxury deregulation upon the expiration of the J-51 tax benefits, while the RCL (the controlling regulation here) does not.  The opinion includes a discussion of court-review of an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute where specialized knowledge is not involved, and statutory-interpretation criteria:

At the outset, we note that the question before us turns purely on statutory interpretation. As such, we need not defer to the agency’s interpretation of the statutes in question, as we are not called upon “to interpret a statute where specialized knowledge and understanding of underlying operational practices or . . . an evaluation of factual data and inferences to be drawn therefrom’ is at stake” … . * * *

The owner argues that the rationale of [the RSL] should also apply to apartments subject to rent control, because, inter alia, to hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the purpose of the luxury deregulation law, which attempted to “restore some rationality to a system which provides the bulk of its benefits to high income tenants” … . We are not unmindful that the legislative history indicates a preference not to have people who can easily afford market value rental property inhabit rent-regulated housing. However, this history does not offer sufficient evidence to alter the unambiguous language of Administrative Code § 26-403(e)(2)(j). To do so would require us to import new language into the RCL and “give it a meaning not otherwise found therein” … . Indeed, “where the language of a statute is clear, there is little room to add to or take away from that meaning'” … . If the application of such long-established principles of statutory construction produces “an undesirable result, the problem is one to be addressed by the Legislature” … . Matter of RAM I LLC v NYS Div of Hous & Community Renewal, 2014 NY Slip Op 06784, 1st Dept 10-7-14

 

/

Petitioner Did Not Have Standing to Contest Negative SEQRA Finding/”Alienation of Parkland” and “Public Trust” Arguments Rejected

The Fourth Department determined petitioner did not have standing to contest the negative finding pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)  The finding concerned a storage facility to be built for the Maid of the Mist excursion boats on state-park land along the Niagara River.  The petitioner, Niagara Preservation Coalition, Inc., was formed to challenge the project.  In the course of the decision, the Fourth Department rejected the “alienation of parkland” and “public trust” arguments:

We conclude that petitioner failed to establish either an injury, or that it is the proper party to seek redress. Although petitioner submitted a supplemental affidavit of one of its members stating that he has a longtime personal and professional interest in the gorge trail and the ruins of the former hydroelectric plant, ” interest’ and injury’ are not synonymous . . . A general—or even special— interest in the subject matter is insufficient to confer standing, absent an injury distinct from the public in the particular circumstances of the case” … . “Appreciation for historical and architectural [artifacts] does not rise to the level of injury different from that of the public at large for standing purposes” … . Here, petitioner failed to establish an injury distinct from members of the public who use the gorge trail to access the ruins of the former hydroelectric plant … , and thus it lacks standing to contest the SEQRA determination. * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner has standing to allege alienation of parkland …, as it alleges in its third cause of action, we conclude that the court properly refused to issue a declaration that respondents …were required to obtain legislative approval for the construction of the facility within the confines of Niagara Falls State Park. It is well established “that parkland is impressed with a public trust, requiring legislative approval before it can be alienated or used for an extended period for non-park purposes” … . It is undisputed, however, that there is no case law in New York applying the “public trust” principle to state parks. The cases apply only to municipal parks … . Even assuming, arguendo, that [state] parks …are governed by the ” public trust doctrine’ ” … , which respondents dispute …, “what [petitioner] show[s here] is a dispute with public authorities about what is desirable for the park[,] . . . not a demonstration of illegality” … . Matter of Niagara Preserv Coalition Inc v New York Power Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 06694, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/

Cleaning Clogged Drain Was Routine Maintenance, Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1)

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance, not repair, and therefore his injury from a fall from a ladder was not covered under Labor Law 240(1):

Addressing … the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, we conclude that plaintiff was not “repairing” the corrosion chamber at the time he was injured, and thus that he was not engaged in a protected activity under section 240 (1). Rather, defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff was involved in “routine maintenance in a non-construction, non-renovation context” … . The court therefore properly granted that part of defendants’ motion with respect to that cause of action and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion. Neither the corrosion chamber nor the components of the “drainage system,” i.e., the floor drain and plastic piping, were in need of “repair.” Rather, the drain was clogged, at least in part as a result of the normal operation of the chamber. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that the clog consisted of “paper and what looked to be like pieces of wooden dowel from like Q-tips that they use,” i.e., parts of samples that had been placed in the chamber on prior occasions, as well as an unknown substance. Although plaintiff and his supervisor testified that dirty conditions in the chamber could potentially compromise test results, there is no evidence that the chamber was ” inoperable or malfunctioning prior to the commencement of the work’ ” … . Further, there is no evidence that plaintiff had to use specialized tools or any tools at all to take apart the plastic piping. Indeed, defendants’ expert averred that the PVC piping had no mechanical fasteners and was “merely a friction fit, therefore, it would be a routine task to remove.” Plaintiff then used an air hose, metal wire, and a water hose to remove the clog, all of which were readily accessible to and used by him in the course of his employment. Leathers v Zaepfel Dev Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06691, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/

Labor Law 200 Cause of Action Requires Supervisory Control Over How Plaintiff Carries Out the Injury-Producing Work

The Fourth Department, in affirming the dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action, explained the operative criteria:

Labor Law § 200 codifies “the common-law duty of a landowner to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work” … , and it therefore encompasses the duty underlying plaintiff’s negligence cause of action. A precondition to the duty under Labor Law § 200 ” is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury’ ” … . Thus, liability under Labor Law § 200 cannot be imposed on a defendant if “there is no evidence that [the] defendant exercised supervisory control or had any input into how” the plaintiff carried out the injury-producing work … .

Here, all three moving defendants met their initial burdens of establishing as a matter of law that they did not have supervisory control over plaintiff’s work and did not have input into how he performed his work. Jones v County of Erie, 2014 NY Slip Op 06726, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/ ,

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

 

/

Injury Caused by Movement and Toppling of a Dry Wall Cart Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1)

The Fourth Department determined an injury related to the toppling of a cart carrying drywall was not covered under Labor Law 240 (1):

At the time of the accident, plaintiff was standing on the ground, the drywall on the cart was not being hoisted or secured, and the cart was not being hoisted or otherwise moved vertically … . We conclude that plaintiff’s injuries were not the direct consequence of a failure to provide blocks or stays to protect against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential; here, the function of such devices would not have been to protect plaintiff from the effects of gravity … . In our view, defendants established as a matter of law “that the injuries resulted from a general hazard encountered at a construction site and were not the direct consequence of a failure to provide’ an adequate device of the sort enumerated in Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . Miles v Buffalo State Alumni Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06732, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/ , ,

Monetary Sanction Against Plaintiff’s Attorney and Striking of Complaint Deemed Appropriate Where Discovery Delays Unexplained

The Fourth Department determined a $2090.00 sanction against plaintiff’s attorney and the striking of the complaint in a slip and fall case were appropriate based upon plaintiff’s discovery delays:

…[W]e conclude that, under the circumstances, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions on plaintiff’s attorney for what the court characterized as “excessive and inexcusable delay” in providing discovery responses … . …[W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that the court applied an incorrect legal standard in striking the complaint and dismissing [the action]. “[T]he type and degree of sanction [for a discovery violation] will be left to the discretionary authority of the trial court which will remain undisturbed absent an abuse thereof” … . “While the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter of [the court’s] discretion . . . , striking a pleading is appropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith” … . Here, the court properly determined that defendant met its initial burden of establishing willful, contumacious or bad faith conduct by plaintiff, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to offer a reasonable excuse … . Allen v Wal-mart Stores Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06695, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/ , , ,

“Error In Judgment” Jury Instruction Properly Given/Defense Verdict Not Against the Weight of the Evidence

In reversing Supreme Court, the Fourth Department determined the “error in judgment” jury instruction was properly given and the defense verdict should not have been set aside as against the weight of the evidence:

We conclude that the court erred in granting that part of plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict in favor of Dr. LaRussa and Associates on the ground that it should not have given an error in judgment charge to the jury with respect to Dr. LaRussa’s alleged malpractice in failing to order and administer dual antibiotic prophylaxis for the cesarean section, and on the alternative ground that the verdict in favor of Dr. LaRussa was against the weight of the evidence. We therefore modify the order accordingly. Based upon Dr. LaRussa’s testimony that he exercised [*2]his professional judgment in choosing between acceptable alternatives, along with expert testimony that there were such acceptable alternatives, we conclude that the court properly gave an error in judgment charge … . There was also evidence that Dr. LaRussa considered and chose between medically acceptable treatment alternatives at plaintiff’s postoperative office visit, and thus the charge was also appropriately given with respect to his postoperative care of plaintiff … . Furthermore, we conclude that “the preponderance of the evidence in favor of plaintiff[s] is not so great that the verdict [finding that Dr. LaRussa was not negligent] could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . Beebe v St Joseph’s Hosp Health Ctr, 2014 NY Slip Op 06711, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

/ , ,

Plaintiffs Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 42 USC 1988—Criteria Explained

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and found that plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 USC 1988.

Plaintiffs had brought an Article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding alleging that they had been improperly removed by the city from an approved list of certified lead inspectors. The plaintiffs prevailed and were returned to the list.  Although the Article 78/declaratory judgment determination was made on state grounds, a federal “denial of due process” claim had also been made.  The Fourth Department explained the criteria for the award of attorney’s fees in this context:

The governing statute, 42 USC § 1988 (b), provides that, “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs . . .” “Although some courts have held, as did the court in this case, that the decision whether to grant an award is entirely discretionary . . . this is incorrect . . . [T]he prevailing party ordinarily should recover reasonable fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust’ ” … . Where, as here, “relief is sought on both State and Federal grounds, but nevertheless awarded on State grounds only,” attorney’s fees may be awarded if a constitutional question is involved and such question is “substantial and arises out of a common nucleus of operative facts as the State claim” … . “The threshold for establishing substantiality of a Federal claim is minimal: the claim must not be wholly insubstantial,’ obviously frivolous’ or obviously without merit’ “… . Cerberus Props LLC v Kirkmire, 2014 NY Slip Op 06723, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

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