BHANMATTIE RAJKUMAR KUMAR, plf-res, v. PI ASSOCIATES, LLC, ap, PRETTY GIRL, def-res, CAPITAL ONE BANK, def

BHANMATTIE RAJKUMAR KUMAR, plf-res, v. PI ASSOCIATES, LLC, ap, PRETTY GIRL, def-res, CAPITAL ONE BANK, def — (INDEX NO. 26568/11)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant PI Associates, LLC, appeals (1), by permission, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Greco, Jr., J.), entered February 20, 2014, as denied its motion to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability as inconsistent and for a new trial, and (2) from an order of the same court entered June 5, 2014, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) for judgment as a matter of law on its cross claim against Pretty Girl for contractual indemnification, granted the cross motion of the defendant Pretty Girl, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and, sua sponte, directed that the defendant PI Associates, LLC, was 90 percent at fault in the happening of the accident.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

BHANMATTIE RAJKUMAR KUMAR, plf-res, v. PI ASSOCIATES, LLC, ap, PRETTY GIRL, def-res, CAPITAL ONE BANK, def — (INDEX NO. 26568/11)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant PI Associates, LLC, appeals (1), by permission, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Greco, Jr., J.), entered February 20, 2014, as denied its motion to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability as inconsistent and for a new trial, and (2) from an order of the same court entered June 5, 2014, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) for judgment as a matter of law on its cross claim against Pretty Girl for contractual indemnification, granted the cross motion of the defendant Pretty Girl, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and, sua sponte, directed that the defendant PI Associates, LLC, was 90 percent at fault in the happening of the accident.

ORDERED that the order entered February 20, 2014, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial on the issue of liability; and it is further,

BHANMATTIE RAJKUMAR KUMAR, plf-res, v. PI ASSOCIATES, LLC, ap, PRETTY GIRL, def-res, CAPITAL ONE BANK, def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal