Practice point: The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial, finding that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant's motion, made pursuant to CPLR 4401 at the the close of evidene, for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action for the return of the ring. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolving credibility issues in his favor, there was a rational process by which the trier of fact could find that, when neither party was under an impediment to marry, the plaintiff gave the defendant the ring in contemplation of a marriage which did not occur. As such, the cause of action for the return of the engagement ring should not have been dismissed.
Case: Bierman v. Limoncelli, NY Slip Op 07426 (2d Dep't October 25, 2017)
Here is the decision.
