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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 26, 1991·Published

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.

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

172 A.D.2d 1058 (Becker v. New York Telephone Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related