From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

RENO v. AMR SERVICE CORPORATION

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 26, 2000
273 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued May 9, 2000.

July 26, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant AMR Service Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated June 18, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict in its favor and directed that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against it as a matter of law on the issue of whether it was negligent, and directed a trial, inter alia, on the issue of whether the appellant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff Robert J. Reno.

Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. (William D. Buckley and James K. O'Sullivan of counsel), for appellant.

Dansker Aspromonte Associates (Steve S. Efron, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for respondents.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the motion is denied, and the verdict is reinstated.

The jury verdict in favor of the appellant was supported by legally sufficient evidence and therefore the trial court erred in directing that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against it as a matter of law (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499). Further, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence as it was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence. The driver of the appellant's vehicle, in which the injured plaintiff was a passenger, presented an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision with another vehicle (see, Torrillo v. Command Bus Co., 206 A.D.2d 520). While there was conflicting trial testimony regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, the jury's fact-finding determination is entitled to great deference and should not be disturbed (see, Torrillo v. Command Bus Co., supra).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the appellant's remaining contention.


Summaries of

RENO v. AMR SERVICE CORPORATION

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 26, 2000
273 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

RENO v. AMR SERVICE CORPORATION

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT J. RENO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. AMR SERVICE CORPORATION…

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

Date published: Jul 26, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 744

Citing Cases

Stalikas v. United Materials

Deakin testified that he was unable to see any vehicles ahead of Pierce's large pickup truck and thus, from…

Robinson v. City of New York

Here, the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law. A valid line of reasoning could have led the jury to…