Legal Opinion
Aikens-Hobson v. Bruno
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 18, 2012PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*710To succeed on a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant has the burden of showing that there is no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the plaintiff and against the moving defendant (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; Liounis v New York City Tr. Auth., 92 AD3d 643 [2012]; Velez v Goldenberg, 29 AD3d 780, 781 [2006]). In determining whether the defendant has met this burden, a court must consider the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference which can…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Szczerbiak v. PilatNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Franco v. BreceusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Katz v. Masada II Car & Limo Service, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Velez v. GoldenbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Liounis v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kayes v. LiberatiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Patrick v. GrimaldiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Kayes v. LiberatiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Patrick v. GrimaldiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012