Opinion
2003-01120.
Decided May 10, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), dated January 2, 2003, as, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability finding them 75% at fault and the plaintiff 25% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them.
Richard Rubinstein, New York, N.Y., for appellants.
Parker Waichman, P.C., (DiJoseph Portegello, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Arnold E. DiJoseph III] of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants were the owner and managing agents of the residential apartment complex in which the plaintiff tenant resided. The plaintiff established at trial that the defendants were negligent in failing to repair or replace a bulb in a vestibule immediately outside of her apartment door. She also proved that their negligence proximately caused her accident which occurred when she fell from a stepladder in an attempt to adjust the bulb.
The trial court properly denied the defendants' trial motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 and 4404. It cannot be concluded that the jury failed to follow a valid line of reasoning in reaching its verdict ( see Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 316; Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499; Dumbadze v. Schwatt, 291 A.D.2d 529; Figueroa v. Center Assocs., 283 A.D.2d 324, 325; Jackson v. New York City Hous. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 605, 606; Perez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 212 A.D.2d 379; McCann v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 668; Shutak v. Handler, 190 A.D.2d 345, 348). In addition, the jury's verdict as to negligence and apportionment of fault was not against the weight of the evidence ( see Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746; Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, supra at 500; Kovit v. Estate of Hallums, 307 A.D.2d 336, 337; Turner v. Sixtieth St. Automotive Serv. Corp., 299 A.D.2d 477, 478; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 133).
There was no error in the trial court's charge to the jury with respect to the defendants' obligations pursuant to the Multiple Dwelling Law ( see Mas v. Two Bridges Assocs., 75 N.Y.2d 680, 687; Cortes v. Riverbridge Realty Co., 227 A.D.2d 430, 431). Moreover, because the trial court's charge, as given, fairly instructed the jury on the legal standards, it was unnecessary to grant the defendants' requests to charge assumption of risk, independent superseding causation, and competing inferences of negligence and freedom therefrom ( see Morgan v. State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 488; Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., supra; Vartabedian v. Hospital For Special Surgery, 292 A.D.2d 520, 521; cf. Oginski v. Rosenberg, 115 A.D.2d 463).
The defendants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., H. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.