Moncion v. Russo

2 Citing cases

  1. Robinson v. City of New York

    300 A.D.2d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 18 times

    In this case, an adequate non-negligent explanation for the collision with the car was presented (see Reno v. AMR Service Corp., supra). Since the record was not "replete with evidence of negligence" (Nicastro v. Park, supra at 137), and the jury could have reached its verdict based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, the trial court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict in favor of the respondents (see Grippo v. Sinatra, 265 A.D.2d 301; Moncion v. Russo, 173 A.D.2d 796; Kutanovski v. DeCicco, 152 A.D.2d 540; Durante v. Frishling, 81 A.D.2d 631). S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and COZIER, JJ., concur.

  2. Maisonet v. Kelly

    228 A.D.2d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 19 times

    The jury obviously credited this account, over the contrary testimony of Maisonet, and the record as a whole furnishes no basis for discounting its credibility assessment. Given that, it cannot be said that the circumstances facing defendant were such as to render the actions he took in response thereto negligent as a matter of law ( see, Moncion v. Russo, 173 A.D.2d 796, 797). To the contrary, the jury could have rationally concluded that the absence of either brake lights or an illuminated turn signal constituted sufficient explanation for defendant's failure to perceive that Maisonet's car was stopped while he still had sufficient time to avoid a collision, and that he acted reasonably given that circumstance ( see, Kienzle v McLoughlin, 202 A.D.2d 299; Varsi v. Stoll, 161 A.D.2d 590, 591); that his conduct, if negligent, was not the proximate cause of the accident ( see, Doyle v. Seney, supra, at 887; Gross v Napoli, 216 A.D.2d 524, 525); or simply that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving either or both of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence ( see, Nicastro v. Park, supra, at 134).