Asaro v. Micali
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Clarke v. Condon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Barbieri v. Vokoun (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Castano v. Aguera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Goldman v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Margiotta v. Rock & Roll Livery, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Moses v. Appliance & Electronics City Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Raymond v. Henry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Suib v. New York City Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Spencer v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A jury verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside unless the evidence preponderates so heavily in the plaintiff’s favor that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744; Lenhart v City of New York, 249 AD2d 516). Here, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury determination that the defendant Joseph Micali (hereinafter the defendant) did not violate Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, and thus, should not be disturbed (see Farrell v Lewarn, 275 AD2d 760).
Since the defendant failed to comply with CPLR 3116 (a), the Supreme Court incorrectly ruled that he would be allowed to use a corrected deposition transcript of his testimony in the event that the plaintiff used his original deposition testimony on cross-examination. However, any error in this regard was harmless. The plaintiff read the uncorrected deposition testimony to the jury, and the jury was never made aware of the corrected deposition testimony. The plaintiffs counsel was clearly able to adjust his trial strategy to account for this (cf. Cole v Mandell Food Stores, 93 NY2d 34; Roseboro v New York City Tr. Auth., 286 AD2d 222; see Andoh v Milano, 271 AD2d 358). Santucci, J.P., Altman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.