From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 1998
256 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 7, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

We agree with the plaintiff that the trial court's submission of an intoxication charge ( see, PJI 2:20) to the jury in this case was erroneous, since the evidence clearly was inadequate to support such an instruction ( see, e.g., Vetere v. Garcia, 211 A.D.2d 631; Sanchez v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 203 A.D.2d 128; Arroyo v. City of New York, 171 A.D.2d 541; see generally, Marigliano v. City of New York, 196 A.D.2d 533; Myron v. Millar El. Indus., 182 A.D.2d 558). Moreover, in view of the close nature of the case and the City's strong reliance throughout the trial on the theory that the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time she fell, and that her condition caused or contributed to the accident, the error cannot be deemed harmless, notwithstanding the responses to the interrogatories propounded on the verdict sheet returned by the jury ( see, e.g., Mercedes v. Amusements of Am., 160 A.D.2d 630). Accordingly, there must be a new trial.

Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 1998
256 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Bell v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA BELL, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 7, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
681 N.Y.S.2d 307

Citing Cases

Randazzo v. Consolidated Edison Company

The jury's determination that the work site where he was injured was not "in an unsafe condition" was a fair…