Skip to main content


Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

LOUIS PUCCIO DEVELOPMENTS, INC., respondent, v. James DEAN, et al., appellants.

Decided: May 31, 2005

ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, and ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, JJ. Thomas Torto, New York, N.Y. (Mary Ellen O'Brien and Kathleen C. Waterman of counsel), for appellants. Lynch & Associates (DiJoseph & Portegello, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Arnold E. DiJoseph III and Norman I. Lida] of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered September 16, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $62,200.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

 A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the evidence so preponderates in favor of the moving party that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Grassi v. Ulrich, 87 N.Y.2d 954, 956, 641 N.Y.S.2d 588, 664 N.E.2d 499;  Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145;  Payne v. Rodriguez, 288 A.D.2d 280, 737 N.Y.S.2d 370).   Issues of credibility are for the jury, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, and the jury's resolution of credibility issues is entitled to deference (see Robinson v. City of New York, 300 A.D.2d 384, 385, 751 N.Y.S.2d 533;  Frumusa v. Weyer Constr., 245 A.D.2d 416, 666 N.Y.S.2d 210).   Moreover, a successful party is entitled to a presumption that the jury adopted a reasonable view of the evidence (see Miglino v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 451, 451-452, 662 N.Y.S.2d 818).

The jury's determination that the plaintiff was entitled to payment for its work under the first three stages of a construction contract and for its installation of a fireplace was not against the weight of the evidence.   The evidence at trial, including the defendants' admission that they signed documents certifying that the first three stages of the work were complete and that the plaintiff had constructed the fireplace, supported the jury's determination that the plaintiff was entitled to payment under the contract (see K.G. Indus. v. ADCO Elec. Corp., 253 A.D.2d 853, 854, 678 N.Y.S.2d 504).

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go to Learn About the Law

Decided: May 31, 2005

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

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.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard