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.
NORA OSMON, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. ISKALO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DEFENDANT, AND H & M PLUMBING & MECHANICAL CONTRACTING, INC., DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the post-trial motion is denied in its entirety and the verdict with respect to defendant H & M Plumbing & Mechanical Contracting, Inc. is reinstated.
Memorandum: Defendant H & M Plumbing & Mechanical Contracting, Inc. (H & M) appeals from an order granting that part of plaintiff's post-trial motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of H & M. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from, deny the post-trial motion in its entirety and reinstate the jury verdict with respect to H & M. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she tripped over a ladder at property owned by defendant Iskalo Development Corporation (Iskalo). Iskalo entered into a contract with H & M to perform plumbing work on the premises. It is undisputed that plaintiff tripped over a ladder owned by H & M, but the jury's conclusion that H & M was not negligent is supported by the record. Although the evidence established that the ladder was marked as belonging to H & M, it was unclear who placed the ladder in the hallway where plaintiff fell. The jury was entitled to determine that an employee of H & M did not place the ladder in the hallway or that the ladder's brief and slight incursion into the hallway was not a dangerous condition. Thus, we conclude that the jury's determination is one that reasonably could have been rendered based on the evidence
presented at trial (see Ruddock v. Happell, 307 A.D.2d 719, 720–721).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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: CA 11–01318
Decided: April 20, 2012
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)