Solecki v. Oakwood Cemetery Ass'n

1 Citing case

  1. Senycia v. Vosseler

    217 A.D.3d 1520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    Similarly, with respect to appeal No. 2, we conclude that the jury's finding that Vosseler was not negligent was "not palpably irrational or wrong" ( Clark v. Loftus , 162 A.D.3d 1643, 1644, 79 N.Y.S.3d 785 [4th Dept. 2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeLesio v. Attardi , 121 A.D.3d 1527, 1528, 993 N.Y.S.2d 810 [4th Dept. 2014] ). Further, even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (e), any error was harmless inasmuch as "a substantial right of a party [was] not prejudiced" ( CPLR 2002 ; seeNestorowich v. Ricotta , 97 N.Y.2d 393, 400-401, 740 N.Y.S.2d 668, 767 N.E.2d 125 [2002] ; Solecki v. Oakwood Cemetery Assn. , 192 A.D.3d 1606, 1607, 140 N.Y.S.3d 815 [4th Dept. 2021] ; Murdoch v. Niagara Falls Bridge Commn. , 81 A.D.3d 1456, 1457-1458, 917 N.Y.S.2d 501 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 702, 2011 WL 2237281 [2011] ). In addition to charging the jury on Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (a), the court charged the jury regarding negligence, foreseeability, and the general duties of motorists to one another, including the duty to operate a motor vehicle "with reasonable care, having regard to the actual and potential hazards existing from the weather, road traffic and other conditions," as well as the "duty to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed."