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.
Charles L. DAVIS, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of P.L.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cheryl McCULLOUGH, Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff commenced this action, individually and on behalf of his infant daughter, seeking damages for injuries sustained by his daughter while attending a family party at defendant's home. Plaintiff's daughter was injured while getting off a motorized toy known as a Kawasaki Power Wheel, and plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to warn his daughter of the dangerous condition of the motorized toy and in failing to provide adequate supervision for his daughter. The jury returned a verdict finding that defendant was not negligent. Contrary to the contention of plaintiff, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied his posttrial motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. It cannot be said that the evidence so preponderated in favor of plaintiff that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see generally Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163). “The determination to set aside a jury verdict is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and we are careful not to unnecessarily interfere with the fact-finding function of the jury to a degree that amounts to a usurpation of the jury's duty” (Morgan v. National City Bank, 32 A.D.3d 1264, 1264, 822 N.Y.S.2d 201).
Also contrary to plaintiff's contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in bifurcating the issues of liability and damages for trial. Plaintiff failed to establish that his daughter's injuries had “ ‘an important bearing’ on the issue of liability ․ and [were] probative in determining how the incident occurred” (Loncz v. Blagrove, 254 A.D.2d 735, 736, 678 N.Y.S.2d 560). Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in curtailing plaintiff's cross-examination of a witness for defendant concerning his prior criminal convictions. The witness offered no relevant testimony on the issue of defendant's alleged negligence and thus his credibility was not at issue (see generally Badr v. Hogan, 75 N.Y.2d 629, 634, 555 N.Y.S.2d 249, 554 N.E.2d 890).
Plaintiff's remaining contentions either are without merit or are not preserved for our review.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 02, 2007
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)