From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wasson v. Barba

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 29, 2001
287 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted September 13, 2001.

October 29, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated March 1, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $461,000, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the same judgment.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Joseph I. Lauer of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Davis Hersh, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Brian P. Schechter of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial on the issue of liability only is granted, with costs to abide the event; the jury's findings of fact as to damages are affirmed.

The plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant Michael Barba, was injured when Barba's vehicle skidded on icy, unsanded, unsalted pavement on Forest Park Drive, a gated thoroughfare traversing a New York City park in Queens, and skidded into a tree. The jury found the City of New York 100% at fault in the happening of the accident. Contrary to the City's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion, made at the close of evidence, to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case against it. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see, Smith v. Hercules Constr. Corp., 274 A.D.2d 467), there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that the City was negligent and that its negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. However, the jury's finding that the City was 100% at fault in the happening of the accident was against the weight of the credible evidence. The jury's failure to apportion any fault to Barba is not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).

The City's remaining contentions are without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wasson v. Barba

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 29, 2001
287 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Wasson v. Barba

Case Details

Full title:JEAN WASSON, respondent-appellant, v. MICHAEL J. BARBA, respondent, CITY…

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

Date published: Oct 29, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
732 N.Y.S.2d 91

Citing Cases

McDonald v. Long Island Rail Road

The evidence presented at trial demonstrates that the plaintiff, who had utilized the New Hyde Park station…

D'Onofrio-Ruden v. Town of Hempstead

Thus, even fully crediting the plaintiff's testimony that the stop sign was obscured, her failure to observe…