Bell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bell v. City of New York

256 A.D.2d 290, 681 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13212

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 7, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated October 18, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her, dismissing the complaint.

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

We agree with the plaintiff that the trial court’s submission of an intoxication charge (see, PJI 2:20) to the jury in this case was erroneous, since the evidence clearly was inadequate to support such an instruction (see, e.g., Vetere v Garcia, 211 AD2d 631; Sanchez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 203 AD2d 128; Arroyo v City of New York, 171 AD2d 541; see generally, Marigliano v City of New York, 196 AD2d 533; Myron v Millar El. Indus., 182 AD2d 558). Moreover, in view of the close nature of the case and the City’s strong reliance throughout the trial on the theory that the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time she fell, and that her condition caused or contributed to the accident, the error cannot be deemed harmless, notwithstanding the responses to the interrogatories propounded on the verdict sheet returned by the jury (see, e.g., Mercedes v Amusements of Am., 160 AD2d 630). Accordingly, there must be a new trial. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated October 18, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her, dismissing the complaint.

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

We agree with the plaintiff that the trial court’s submission of an intoxication charge (see, PJI 2:20) to the jury in this case was erroneous, since the evidence clearly was inadequate to support such an instruction (see, e.g., Vetere v Garcia, 211 AD2d 631; Sanchez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 203 AD2d 128; Arroyo v City of New York, 171 AD2d 541; see generally, Marigliano v City of New York, 196 AD2d 533; Myron v Millar El. Indus., 182 AD2d 558). Moreover, in view of the close nature of the case and the City’s strong reliance throughout the trial on the theory that the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time she fell, and that her condition caused or contributed to the accident, the error cannot be deemed harmless, notwithstanding the responses to the interrogatories propounded on the verdict sheet returned by the jury (see, e.g., Mercedes v Amusements of Am., 160 AD2d 630). Accordingly, there must be a new trial. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Bell v. City of New York, 256 A.D.2d 290, 681 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

256 A.D.2d 290 (Bell v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related