From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mejia v. Coleman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 6, 1990
168 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

December 6, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William F. McDermott, J.).


Trial Term properly declined defendant Coleman's request to charge PJI 2:85, "Motorist's Duty Re Maintenance — To Passenger", and PJI 2:14, "Emergency Situation", since no evidence was adduced to support these charges. With respect to a motorist's duty to his passenger, defendant offered no evidence to establish that the accident was caused by a mechanical defect (see, Gordon v. State of New York, 57 Misc.2d 731, 736). Likewise, there was neither a claim nor evidence that Coleman had failed to exercise best judgment as between choice of alternatives, as a predicate to the emergency situation charge (see, Amaro v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 30, 36; Rowlands v. Parks, 2 N.Y.2d 64, 67-68).

We find that the award of damages was inadequate in view of the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries and consequently we have conditioned the avoidance of a new trial as to damages upon stipulation by both defendants to an increased amount.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Mejia v. Coleman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 6, 1990
168 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Mejia v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:LEOPOLDO R. MEJIA, Appellant-Respondent, v. ASA COLEMAN et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 6, 1990

Citations

168 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
562 N.Y.S.2d 482

Citing Cases

Tenesaca Huerta v. Parker

"It is the duty of the [owner] of a motor vehicle to use reasonable care to have it in a reasonably safe…

Mejia v. Coleman

April 16, 1991 Motion granted only insofar as to stay, for a period of twenty days after service upon…