Case Name: Ericka L. Armand-Byrd et al., Respondents, v. Inok H. Paik, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1995-06-05
Citations: 216 A.D.2d 261
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ericka L. Armand-Byrd et al., Respondents, v Inok H. Paik, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 216
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
Ericka L. Armand-Byrd et al., Respondents, v Inok H. Paik, Appellant.
[627 NYS2d 978]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated March 21, 1994, which, upon the granting by the court of the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judg ment as a matter of law, and upon a jury verdict as to damages, is in favor of the plaintiff Ericka L. Armand-Byrd and against it in the principal sum of $80,000.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, we conclude that a jury could not find for the defendant by any rational process. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law (see, Rhabb v New York City Hous. Auth., 41 NY2d 200; Reynolds v Morford, 124 AD2d 978). We reject the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for an adjournment in order to produce a witness to the accident. The proposed witness's testimony would only have been cumulative and immaterial. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.