TROY SHUKNECHT PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT v. DALE SHUKNECHT MARC SHUKNECHT TRIPLE FARMS NEW YORK PARTNERSHIP LEE SHUKNECHT JOAN SHUKNECHT LS SONS FARMS LLC AND TRIPLE ENTERPRISES LLC DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS (2017)

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 is denied, the counterclaims are reinstated, and a new trial is granted.

Memorandum:  Following a trial on their counterclaims, defendants appeal from an order and judgment that granted plaintiffs' motion, made at the close of defendants' proof, for a directed verdict dismissing the counterclaims.  Defendants contend that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion.  We agree, and we therefore reverse.  It is well settled that “ ‘a directed verdict is appropriate where the ․ court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party ․ In determining whether to grant a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant’ “ (A & M Global Mgt. Corp. v Northtown Urology Assoc., P.C., 115 AD3d 1283, 1287–1288;  see Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d 553, 556).  Applying those standards here, we conclude that the court erred in granting the motion for a directed verdict dismissing the counterclaims.

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court