Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
RAG HERKIMER, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The GLIDER OIL COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion for a directed verdict is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the costs of remediation after petroleum contamination was discovered in the soil on property owned by plaintiff and leased to defendant, on which defendant operated a gas station. Following motion practice, the matter proceeded to trial on the issue of damages, which resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appeals from an order and judgment that, inter alia, denied defendant's motion during trial for a directed verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401 and its motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) and awarded plaintiff a money judgment against defendant.
We agree with defendant that it was entitled to a directed verdict. Even affording plaintiff every inference that may properly be drawn from the evidence presented at trial and considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff (see Senycia v. Vosseler, 217 A.D.3d 1520, 1521, 192 N.Y.S.3d 356 [4th Dept. 2023]), we conclude that there is no rational process by which the jury could have found that payments were made by plaintiff for remediation. Instead, the evidence established that any such payments were made by a managing agent, nonparty Gibraltar Management, which was not the property owner nor a party to the lease. We conclude that the jury's determination that billing Gibraltar Management resulted in payment by plaintiff could only have been reached “based upon sheer speculation” (Montas v. JJC Constr. Corp., 20 N.Y.3d 1016, 1018, 963 N.Y.S.2d 164, 985 N.E.2d 1225 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Maxon Intl. v. International Harvester Co., 82 A.D.2d 1006, 1007, 442 N.Y.S.2d 588 [3d Dept. 1981], affd for reasons stated 56 N.Y.2d 879, 453 N.Y.S.2d 428, 438 N.E.2d 1143 [1982]).
Therefore, we reverse the order and judgment, grant the motion for a directed verdict, and dismiss the complaint.
Based on our determination, we do not reach defendant's remaining contentions.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 83
Decided: May 03, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)