From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gotoy v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 23, 1999
723 N.E.2d 70 (N.Y. 1999)

Opinion

Argued October 21, 1999

Decided November 23, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court (Melvin Barasch, J.).

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Jane L. Gordon and Edward F. X. Hart of counsel), for appellants.

Seligson, Rothman Rothman, New York City (Martin S. Rothman and Alyne I. Diamond of counsel), and Gallin Newman, P. C., Bronx (Philip Newman of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted, for reasons stated by the dissenters, to the extent that they concluded that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury as to any alleged comparative negligence on plaintiff's part. The police officer's testimony regarding plaintiff's alleged failure to follow safety instructions created a question of fact as to plaintiff's comparative fault, which should have been submitted to the jury for its consideration.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY and ROSENBLATT concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Gotoy v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 23, 1999
723 N.E.2d 70 (N.Y. 1999)
Case details for

Gotoy v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ELVIS GOTOY, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants, et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 23, 1999

Citations

723 N.E.2d 70 (N.Y. 1999)
723 N.E.2d 70
701 N.Y.S.2d 321

Citing Cases

Seligson, Rothman Rothman v. Gallin, Newman

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ. The subject contract provides that plaintiff's…

Seligson, Rothman Rothman v. Gallin Newman

On November 23, 1999, the Court of Appeals reversed the order and granted a new trial, "for reasons stated by…