Bernstein v. Fernandez, 649 A.2d 1064 (1991)

Citation: Bernstein v. Fernandez, 649 A.2d 1064 (1991)
Parent Document: Bernstein v. Fernandez, 649 A.2d 1064 (1991)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1991-03-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2103411/bernstein-v-fernandez/ ↗

Full Text

1,163 chars

Our standard of review is the same with respect to both motions. The denial of either a motion for directed verdict or a motion for judgment n.o.v. must be affirmed unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, would permit reasonable persons to return a verdict only in favor of the moving party. Vuitch v. Furr, 482 A.2d 811, 813-814 (D.C.1984) (directed verdict); Washington Welfare Ass'n v. Poindexter, 479 A.2d 313, 315 (D.C.1984) (judgment n.o.v.). The evidence here does not meet this standard. Proof that three *1071 provisions of the settlement agreement or the consent order were breached is enough to support the jury's verdict, especially since falling ceilings and rodent infestation were important items among the many things that H & M agreed to repair or alleviate. Furthermore, H & M agreed to make actual repairs, not merely to make a good faith effort to do so. Even assuming that the repair efforts were made in good faith, good faith was no defense to the breach of either the settlement agreement or the consent order.[5] Ample evidence supported the jury's verdict on this count. C. The warranty of habitability

Other Sections in This Document (123)

Full Text