SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF DUTCHESS

----------------------------------------X

STEVEN A. PAGONES,

Plaintiff,

 

DECISION & ORDER

- against -

 

Index No. 4595/88

 

ALTON H. MADDOX, JR.,

AL SHARPTON and TAWANA BRAWLEY,

Defendants.

----------------------------------------X

STEVEN A . PAGONES,

Plaintiff,

- against -

 

Index No. 1753/90

C. VERNON MASON,

Defendant.

----------------------------------------X

HICKMAN, J.

Motion by defendant C. Vernon Mason for an order pursuant to CPLR §4404 setting aside the jury verdict rendered in plaintiff’s favor on July 29, 1998.

Motion by defendant Al Sharpton for an order pursuant to CPLR §§4404 and 4406 setting aside the jury verdict on the grounds of illegality, being against the weight of the evidence as a matter of law and in the interest of justice.

Motion by defendant Alton H. Maddox, Jr., for an order pursuant to CPLR §4404 setting aside the jury verdict and ordering a new trial, if not a dismissal, on the grounds that the (alleged) failure to comply with the jury request for a readback of testimonyconstitutes prejudicial error, the imposition of a sanction for expressing one’s belief is contrary to the United States Constitution, the (alleged) failure to properly instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error, the Court’s (alleged) expression of its opinion on the strength of plaintiff’s case constitutes prejudicial error, the failure of plaintiff to meet his burden of proof regarding each element of the fifteenth and eighteenth causes of action, and that the record in its entirety or, in part, contains prejudicial errors.

In order to justify setting aside a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, a Court must make a finding that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nazito v Holton, 96 AD2d 550 [2nd Dept. 1983]).

There were multiple issues of fact that were for the jury, the trier of fact, to resolve and the Court believes that there is absolutely no basis to disturb the jury’s determinations, rendered after more than eight months of service and sacrifice by the individual jurors as well as the alternate jurors. There was ample evidence in the record in support of the jury’s determinations on the issues of liability as well as damages, both compensatory and punitive.

The Court has reviewed the various grounds advanced by the individual moving defendants in support of their separateapplications and finds them either to be lacking in merit and/or an inadequate basis to set aside the verdict in the interests of justice.

 

Accordingly, the motions are denied.

The Court has considered all submissions.

So ordered.

 

_________________________

S. BARRETT HICKMAN, J.S.C.

DATED:October , 1998

Carmel, New York

TO:

William Stanton, Esq.

P.O. Box 12523

Millbrook, NY 12545

Stephen C. Jackson, Esq.

50 5th Avenue, Suite 2310

New York, NY 10118

Mr. Alton Maddox, Jr.

16 Court Street

Brooklyn, NY 11241

Michael A. Hardy, Esq.

Scheurer, Wiggin & Hardy

250 West 57th Street, Ste 515

New York, NY 10107