FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018
`
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07m2018
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
`-
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
`
`INDEX NO. 505041/2013
`INDEX NO- 505041/2013
`
`
`
`
`
`ReCeIVeD vYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`245"
`
`-_(:
`
`.
`
`-
`
`garment}: Olnurt at the firm: nf New lflnrk
`
`Appellate Biuiatnn: Santana filuhirtal Bepartment
`
`D55804
`
`Q/hu
`
`'
`
`AD3d
`
`Argued — February 22, 2013
`
`MARK C. DILLON, JP.
`CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
`
`SYLVIA O. HINDS—RADIX
`
`LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
`
`2016—03630
`
`.
`
`~
`Nathan Shellkopf, respondent, v Shimon Bernfeld,
`appellant.
`
`-
`
`i
`
`.7
`
`(Index No. 505041/13)
`
`,
`
`5%” ' a
`‘33!
`3":
`->
`c...
`53
`DECISION & 0%)ERéf
`.3 ea
`.0 $23
`3:
`1;:
`5'“)
`I
`he:
`35,?
`
`,
`
`Adams, Hanson & Kaplan, Buffalo, NY (Kevin J. Graff of counsel), for appellant.
`
`Law Office of Vaccaro and White, New York, NY (Adam D. White of counsel), for
`
`respondent.
`
`In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a
`judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.) entered April 1 1, 2016. The
`judgment, upon a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of eliability, upon the parties”
`stipulation on the issue of damages, and upon the denial of the defendant’ s motion pursuant toJCPLR
`4404 to set aside the verdict on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the
`alternative, to set aside the verdict as contrary to, the weight of the iéVidence {and for a new trial, is
`in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $100,000.
`_
`.‘
`..'
`|
`. r||
`
`ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. '
`
`:1
`
`The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he
`sustained when the defendant’s vehicle struck him while he was riding a bicycle in Brooklyn.
`Following a jury trial on the issue of liability, the jury found the defendant 100% at fault in the
`happening of the accident. The defendant then moved pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the
`verdict on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, the set
`
`. _.
`
`aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. The motion was
`
`June 27, 2018
`
`'
`
`_ Page i.
`
`.
`
`SHELLKOPF v BERNFELD
`
`lof2
`1 of 2
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2018
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07m2018
`
`'NYSCEF DOC. N0. 31
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
`
`INDEX NO. 505041/2013
`INDEX NO- 505041/2013
`
`
`
`
`
`R«.c«.1v«.o \rysczsr: 07/10/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`
`
`-..
`
`. “a
`
`
`
`denied. A judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal
`
`sum of $100,000. The defendant appeals.
`
`'
`
`.
`
`For a reviewing court to determine that a jury’s verdict is not supported by legally
`Sufficient evidence, it must conclude that there is “simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible
`inferences” by which the jury could have rationally reached its verdict on the basis of the evidence
`presented at trial (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; see Szczerbiak v Pilot, 90 NY2d
`553, 556; Geary v Church of St. Thomas Aquinas, 98 AD3d 646, 646; Guclu v 900 Eighth Ave.
`Condominium, LLC, 81 AD3d 592, 592).
`In addition, 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 by any fair
`interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big VSupermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746; Amajie v Muchai,
`109 AD3d 852, 852; Chavanne vBZL Cleaning Solution, Inc, 84 AD3d 852, 853). Whether 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 (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45
`NY2d at 499; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133). “‘It is for the jury to make determinations as
`to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference in this regard is accorded to the jury, which
`had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses’” (Jean—Louis v City ofNew York, 86 AD3d 628,
`629, quoting Exarhouleas v Green 3] 7Madison, LLC, 46 AD3d 854, 855; see Salony v Mastellone,
`72 AD3d 1060, 1061).
`-
`'\
`
`Applying these principles here, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible
`inferences by which the jury could have rationally reached its verdict on the basis of the evidence
`presented at trial, and a fair interpretation of the evidence supported the jury’s verdict in favor of the
`plaintiff.
`‘
`
`.
`
`The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review
`or without merit.
`
`DILLON, J .P., CHAMBERS, HINDS—RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
`
`SUPREME Gaynrfsrint OF NEW YORK
`.
`.
`APPELLATE‘DEVISEON srcnnn ntpr-
`r, APRILANNE-AGOSTINO, Clerk of the Appellate Dlvrsron 0fthe§h$hfi§
`Court, Secnneiudiciai Department, sin hereby certitythatl have compared
`
`this mm, with the nrigina! filed arr romaine—m
`JUN-2 7 fig? ha
`
`this copy is a correct transen than of said anginial.
`.
`,
`[N WiTNESS WHERE F I have hereunto set my hand and afil
`Apnlanne Ag mo
`the seal of this Court unjUN 2 7 2,013.???
`-
`. Clerk of the Court
`1
`,
`'
`.‘ifiiflfimfi ; ”MM;
`
`2.0
`
`June 27, 2018
`
`‘
`SHELLKOPF v BERNFELD
`
`Page 2.
`
`20f2
`2 of 2
`
`