Opinion
November 9, 1993
Appeal from the Court of Claims (Frank Rossetti, J.).
The court was entitled, as fact-finder, to credit the conclusions of the State's expert instead of those of claimant's expert (see, Laniado v New York Hosp., 168 A.D.2d 341, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 853). Sufficient evidence supports the conclusion that the decedent had been using cocaine and speeding, causing his car to leave the road with excessive force sufficient to overcome an ordinarily adequate barrier, and that the decedent could have avoided or mitigated impact with a concrete abutment, but for his condition and inadequate reaction. The decision of the court after a bench trial should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 179 A.D.2d 29, 31, affd 80 N.Y.2d 490).
We have considered the remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.