Case Name: Thomas J. Arlotta et al., Respondents, v. J & J Equipment Rental Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendants. New York Paving, Inc., Sued Herein as New York Paving Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And Another Third-Party Action.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1997-12-22
Citations: 245 A.D.2d 478
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas J. Arlotta et al., Respondents, v J & J Equipment Rental Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendants. New York Paving, Inc., Sued Herein as New York Paving Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And Another Third-Party Action.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 245
Pages: 478–478

Head Matter:
Thomas J. Arlotta et al., Respondents, v J & J Equipment Rental Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendants. New York Paving, Inc., Sued Herein as New York Paving Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And Another Third-Party Action.)
[666 NYS2d 39]

Opinion:
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant, New York Paving, Inc., s/h/a New York Paving Company, Inc., appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated November 12, 1996, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the third-party plaintiff, J & J Equipment Rental Corp., and against it in the principal sum of $760,236.30.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiffs-respondents.
Contrary to the appellant's contention the court properly denied its motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence as it was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.