Bodge v Red Hook Senior Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.
2011 NY Slip Op 05644 [85 AD3d 1073]
June 28, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 10, 2011


Seamus Bodge, Appellant,
v
Red Hook Senior HousingDevelopment Fund Company, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[*1]Basch & Keegan, LLP, Kingston, N.Y. (Derek J. Spada of counsel), for appellant.

Gambeski & Frum, Elmsford, N.Y. (George P. Gambeski of counsel), forrespondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Wood, J.), enteredJune 18, 2010, as, after the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matterof law on the issue of liability on his cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §240 (1) and, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing hiscause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 4401, "[a]ny party may move for judgment with respect to a cause ofaction or issue upon the ground that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,after the close of the evidence presented by an opposing party with respect to such cause ofaction or issue." At the time the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matterof law on the issue of liability on his cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §240 (1), the defendants had not completed their case. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion waspremature, and the plaintiff never renewed his motion (see DeWall v Owl Homes ofVictor, 213 AD2d 977 [1995]; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws ofNY, Book 7B, CPLR C4401:4, C4401:5).

The plaintiff's contention that the jury's verdict is inconsistent is not preserved for appellatereview, since he did not raise that issue before the jury was discharged (see Rivera v MTA Long Is. Bus, 45AD3d 557, 557-558 [2007]; Delacruz v Galaxy Elecs., 300 AD2d 278 [2002]).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Covello, Chambers andRoman, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.