Becker v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Becker v. New York Telephone Co.

172 A.D.2d 1058, 569 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6335

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

DecidedApril 26, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 1058 (Becker v. New York Telephone Co.) 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

Becker v. New York Telephone Co., 172 A.D.2d 1058, 569 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff is entitled to a new trial because the charge given by the court was confusing, incoherent and incomplete with respect to the applicable legal principles (see, Cumbo v Valente, 118 AD2d 679; Lopato v Kinney Rent-A-Car, 73 AD2d 565; Biener v City of New York, 47 AD2d 520; see also, Runfola v Bryant, 127 AD2d 972). Supreme Court failed to give a specific charge on comparative negligence, intermingled the principles of comparative negligence and proximate cause, and interjected elements of contributory negligence into the charge, thereby implying to the jury that, if plaintiffs decedent had been negligent in any way, there could be no recovery. In the circumstances of this case, it is doubtful that the jury gave fair consideration to plaintiff’s claims (see, Theodoropoulos v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 90 AD2d 792; cf., Binder v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 49 AD2d 562).

We have examined plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J.—Negligence.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff is entitled to a new trial because the charge given by the court was confusing, incoherent and incomplete with respect to the applicable legal principles (see, Cumbo v Valente, 118 AD2d 679; Lopato v Kinney Rent-A-Car, 73 AD2d 565; Biener v City of New York, 47 AD2d 520; see also, Runfola v Bryant, 127 AD2d 972). Supreme Court failed to give a specific charge on comparative negligence, intermingled the principles of comparative negligence and proximate cause, and interjected elements of contributory negligence into the charge, thereby implying to the jury that, if plaintiffs decedent had been negligent in any way, there could be no recovery. In the circumstances of this case, it is doubtful that the jury gave fair consideration to plaintiff’s claims (see, Theodoropoulos v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 90 AD2d 792; cf., Binder v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 49 AD2d 562).

We have examined plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J.—Negligence.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 1058, 569 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack