Bahadur v. G. C. Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bahadur v. G. C. Construction Corp.

265 A.D.2d 514, 696 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10769

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 1999·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J.), entered June 3, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $500,000.

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

[515] In the instant case, “[t]he jury’s initial finding that [the injured plaintiffs] negligence was not [a] proximate cause of the accident was inconsistent with the finding that [he] was [30%] at fault” (Cortes v Edoo, 228 AD2d 463, 465). The trial court did not err iñ instructing the jury to further consider its answers and verdict (see, CPLR 4111 [c]; cf., Cortes v Edoo, supra).

We agree with the appellant that under the circumstances of this case, the jury’s finding that the injured plaintiff was negligent, but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, was against the weight of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134; see also, Stanton v Gasport View Dairy Farm, 244 AD2d 893). Thus, a new trial is granted. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, 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, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J.), entered June 3, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $500,000.

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

[515] In the instant case, “[t]he jury’s initial finding that [the injured plaintiffs] negligence was not [a] proximate cause of the accident was inconsistent with the finding that [he] was [30%] at fault” (Cortes v Edoo, 228 AD2d 463, 465). The trial court did not err iñ instructing the jury to further consider its answers and verdict (see, CPLR 4111 [c]; cf., Cortes v Edoo, supra).

We agree with the appellant that under the circumstances of this case, the jury’s finding that the injured plaintiff was negligent, but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, was against the weight of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134; see also, Stanton v Gasport View Dairy Farm, 244 AD2d 893). Thus, a new trial is granted. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Bahadur v. G. C. Construction Corp., 265 A.D.2d 514, 696 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

265 A.D.2d 514 (Bahadur v. G. C. Construction Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related