Key Takeaway
Court sets aside jury verdict as unsupported when plaintiff's testimony was "manifestly untrue" and contradicted by evidence under CPLR 4404(a) standard.
This article is part of our ongoing 4404(a) & weight of evidence review coverage, with 9 published articles analyzing 4404(a) & weight of evidence review issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Acosta v City of New York,2010 NY Slip Op 02910 (2d Dept. 2010)
Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), the trial court “may set aside a verdict … and direct that judgment be entered in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” A court may set aside a jury verdict as unsupported by legally sufficient evidence only if there is ” simply no valid [*2]line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial’” (Soto v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 487, 492, quoting Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499). In considering such a motion, ” the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant’” (Hand v Field, 15 AD3d 542, 543, quoting Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556).
Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to him, there was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly have led rational individuals to conclude, based upon the evidence presented, that the defendants were liable. In sum, the plaintiff’s version of the events was “manifestly untrue, physically impossible, or contrary to common experience, and such testimony should be disregarded as being without evidentiary value” (Cruz v New York City Tr. Auth., 31 AD3d 688, 690, affd 8 NY3d 825). We note that the record is replete with instances where the testimony and other evidence adduced by the plaintiff was manifestly untrue and tailored to avoid the consequences of previous statements made by him to disinterested nonparty witnesses. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law.”
This is just bad.
Related Articles
- Peer doctor’s testimony demonstrates sufficient prima facie case for lack of medical necessity
- Intelligent appellate strategy in weight of evidence review
- Credibility challenges and jury verdict considerations
- Post-verdict procedural requirements affecting judgment
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post discussing CPLR 4404(a) standards for setting aside jury verdicts, there may have been amendments to civil practice rules, updates to appellate court interpretations of the “legally sufficient evidence” standard, or procedural modifications affecting post-trial motions. Practitioners should verify current CPLR provisions and recent case law developments when applying these weight-of-evidence principles.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More 4404(a) & weight of evidence review Analysis
NY Insurance Subpoena Enforcement and Fair Hearing Rights
Expert analysis of NY insurance subpoena enforcement and fair hearing rights. Global Liberty case shows importance of due process. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 3, 2019“We have to move these cases timely.”
Court wrongly precluded expert witnesses despite no prejudice, emphasizing case timeline over proper CPLR 4404 analysis in no-fault insurance dispute.
Dec 18, 2018Peer doctor's testimony is sufficient to prima facie demonstrate a service's lack of medical necessity
Court finds peer doctor testimony with medical rationale sufficient to prove lack of medical necessity, reversing trial court in no-fault case.
Apr 25, 2010Mr. Ortega, why did you lie to us?
Ortega v Healthcare Services Group case analysis - plaintiff's incomplete disclosure of health history leads to jury verdict favoring defendant on causation and damages.
Nov 15, 2018Shoulder surgery with physical therapy – valued at $550,000
Court reduces $1.15M jury award to $550K for shoulder surgery case, highlighting how trial courts evaluate excessive pain and suffering damages in personal injury claims.
Nov 14, 20181.5 million dollar scope and post-concussive injury
$1.5M jury award upheld for bus accident victim with cervical/lumbar disc injuries, torn menisci, and post-concussive syndrome under NY Insurance Law 5102(d).
Jul 21, 2018Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a CPLR 4404(a) motion?
A CPLR 4404(a) motion asks the trial court to set aside a jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence or to direct judgment as a matter of law. It is filed after trial and gives the trial judge an opportunity to correct verdicts that are not supported by the evidence.
What standard does the court apply to a weight of evidence challenge?
The court examines whether the jury could have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence. A verdict will be set aside only if it could not have been reached on any reasonable view of the evidence. This is a high standard that gives considerable deference to the jury.
Can a new trial be ordered after a weight of evidence motion?
Yes. If the court finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, it may order a new trial. Alternatively, the court may conditionally order a new trial unless one party consents to a reduced or increased award (additur/remittitur).
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a 4404(a) & weight of evidence review matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.