From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 12, 2009
67 A.D.3d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 1463.

November 12, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered June 24, 2008, which granted plaintiffs motion to set aside a jury verdict in defendants' favor, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, the verdict reinstated, and the complaint dismissed.

Wallace D. Gossett, New York (Steve S. Efron of counsel), for appellants.

Simonson Hess Leibowitz, P.C., New York (Steven L. Hess of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


The jury found that the bus driver's negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries. Plaintiffs argument of irreconcilable inconsistency in this finding is unpreserved ( see Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803, 806). Moreover, this case does not present a situation where the questions of negligence and proximate cause are inextricably interwoven. The jury's determination that defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injury was neither inconsistent nor against the weight of the evidence ( see Dwight v New York City Tr. Auth., 30 AD3d 270, lv denied 7 NY3d 711). Where the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view ( Koopersmith v General Motors Corp., 63 AD2d 1013, lv denied 46 NY2d 705).


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 12, 2009
67 A.D.3d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:JACQUELINE RODRIGUEZ, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et…

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

Date published: Nov 12, 2009

Citations

67 A.D.3d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8164
888 N.Y.S.2d 56

Citing Cases

Madrigal v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.

00, on the retaliatory termination claim to $1,000,000, for mental anguish, and to $750,000 on the hostile…

Devadas v. Niksarli

Moreover, the jury was entitled to credit or discredit any witness testimony at trial, as "[j]uries are…