Majority
p. 646Nicola Tribuzio, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants. [789 NYS2d 917]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated October 23, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $350,000.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
For a court to find as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, it must “conclude that there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion
p. 647
reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 , 499 [1978]). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460 , 464 [1984]), we discern that a valid line of reasoning existed for the jury’s determination that the defendants had constructive notice of the dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff to slip and fall (see Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625 , 626 [1985]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. 45 NY2d 493 at 499 p. 647
- Alexander v. Eldred 63 NY2d 460 at 464 p. 647