Audige v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Audige v. New York City Transit Authority

149 A.D.2d 555, 539 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4948

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 17, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 555 (Audige v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Audige v. New York City Transit Authority, 149 A.D.2d 555, 539 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated April 6, 1987, which, upon a jury verdict, is against her and in favor of the defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

Viewed in light of the trial court’s charge (see, Maze v DiBartolo, 130 AD2d 720), the jury’s finding in response to special interrogatories, that the plaintiff sustained injury "as a result of bus doors closing on her while she was attempting to exit a New York City Transit Authority bus” was inconsistent with its finding that the defendant New York City Transit Authority was not negligent "in a manner which in any material way, contributed to the causing of this occurrence”. Although not inherently inconsistent, the verdict simply cannot be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence (cf, Maze v DiBartolo, supra). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing either to require the jury to further consider its answers to the special interrogatories or to order a new trial (CPLR 4111 [c]). Brown, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated April 6, 1987, which, upon a jury verdict, is against her and in favor of the defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

Viewed in light of the trial court’s charge (see, Maze v DiBartolo, 130 AD2d 720), the jury’s finding in response to special interrogatories, that the plaintiff sustained injury "as a result of bus doors closing on her while she was attempting to exit a New York City Transit Authority bus” was inconsistent with its finding that the defendant New York City Transit Authority was not negligent "in a manner which in any material way, contributed to the causing of this occurrence”. Although not inherently inconsistent, the verdict simply cannot be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence (cf, Maze v DiBartolo, supra). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing either to require the jury to further consider its answers to the special interrogatories or to order a new trial (CPLR 4111 [c]). Brown, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 555, 539 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/audige-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack