Barry v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barry v. City of New York

283 A.D.2d 300, 724 N.Y.S.2d 613, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5392

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

DecidedMay 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 300 (Barry v. City of New York) 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

Barry v. City of New York, 283 A.D.2d 300, 724 N.Y.S.2d 613, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5392 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J., and a jury on liability; Louise Gruner Gans, J., and a jury on damages), entered April 10, 2000, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, finding defendant 100% at fault, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The verdict is fairly supported by evidence that, for unex[301]*301plained reasons, the City vehicle that was in front of the tow truck that was in front of plaintiff either stopped suddenly or failed to give a proper signal that it was already stopped, setting in motion a chain of events culminating in plaintiff’s motorcycle sliding into the rear of the tow truck after he hit a raised crack in the roadway and lost control of his brakes (see, Niemiec v Jones, 237 AD2d 267; Edwards v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 252 AD2d 410, 412; Cruz v City of New York, 218 AD2d 546, 548-549). We have considered defendant’s other arguments, including that under no fair interpretation of the evidence could plaintiff be found completely free of fault, and find them unavailing (cf., Berry v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 256 AD2d 271). Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J., and a jury on liability; Louise Gruner Gans, J., and a jury on damages), entered April 10, 2000, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, finding defendant 100% at fault, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The verdict is fairly supported by evidence that, for unex[301]*301plained reasons, the City vehicle that was in front of the tow truck that was in front of plaintiff either stopped suddenly or failed to give a proper signal that it was already stopped, setting in motion a chain of events culminating in plaintiff’s motorcycle sliding into the rear of the tow truck after he hit a raised crack in the roadway and lost control of his brakes (see, Niemiec v Jones, 237 AD2d 267; Edwards v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 252 AD2d 410, 412; Cruz v City of New York, 218 AD2d 546, 548-549). We have considered defendant’s other arguments, including that under no fair interpretation of the evidence could plaintiff be found completely free of fault, and find them unavailing (cf., Berry v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 256 AD2d 271). Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 300, 724 N.Y.S.2d 613, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barry-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack