Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Singer v. Krul
Citations: 90 A.D.3d 1378; 934 N.Y.2d 729
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 21, 2011; New York; State Appellate Court
The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial under CPLR 4404 (a) lies within the trial court's discretion and can only be overturned if there is an abuse of that discretion. In a malicious prosecution claim, the plaintiff must establish the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding. The plaintiff argued that probable cause was negated because the defendant's actions provoked the incident leading to the traffic charge. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant's high-speed approach caused him to make a turn that resulted in his tires crossing the fog line. To support his argument, the plaintiff sought to introduce expert testimony regarding the defendant's speed. However, the Supreme Court precluded this testimony, reasoning that there was insufficient evidence of the defendant's rate of acceleration for expert analysis and that assessing the speed of the vehicle was within the understanding of an ordinary juror. Upon reviewing the case, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the motion for a new trial. The order was affirmed without costs, with Judges Peters, Malone Jr., Kavanagh, and Stein concurring.