Case Name: Thomas P. Fleet et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Major Systems, Inc., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Suffolk County Community College, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-06-10
Citations: 129 A.D.3d 774
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas P. Fleet et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v Major Systems, Inc., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Suffolk County Community College, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 774–775

Head Matter:
Thomas P. Fleet et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v Major Systems, Inc., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Suffolk County Community College, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
[9 NYS3d 880]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated January 11, 2013, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and against them, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In this case, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; Sokolik v Pateman, 114 AD3d 839, 840 [2014]). Further, a fair interpretation of the evidence supported the jury's determination that the defendant was not negligent (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134-135 [1985]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding certain documents from being admitted into evidence, since the plaintiffs failed to present an adequate foundation for the admission of those documents, which were, in any event, not relevant to the issues before the jury.
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.
Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.