Patrizia Vittorio, etc., appellant, v. U-Haul Company, et al., respondents, et al., defendant.

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Patrizia Vittorio, etc., appellant, v. U-Haul Company, et al., respondents, et al., defendant.

2009-02412 (Index No. 1404/04)

Decided: October 26, 2010

STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P. FRED T. SANTUCCI RANDALL T. ENG SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ. Frederick Bittner, Jr., Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant. Nicoletti, Gonson, Spinner & Owen, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kevin F. Pinter and Pauline E. Glaser of counsel), for respondents.

Argued-October 7, 2010


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated January 22, 2009, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants U-Haul Company, U-Haul Company of New York, Inc., and U-Haul International, Inc., and against her dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's contention that the verdict sheet interrogatories failed to state the appropriate standard to be applied by the jury in determining the issue of the respondents' liability is unpreserved for appellate review (see Laboda v. VJV Dev. Corp., 296 A.D.2d 441;  Calabrese v. Cheung W. Chan, 244 A.D.2d 376).

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.   The evidence did not so preponderate in favor of the plaintiff that the verdict in favor of the respondents could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v. Big v. Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744;  Barnett v. Schwartz, 47 AD3d 197, 205;  Slezak v. Prime Automotive Parts Co., 233 A.D.2d 434;  Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review.



Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard