Campbell v. Crimi

267 A.D.2d 343, 700 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13183
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 20, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 343 (Campbell v. Crimi) 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
Campbell v. Crimi, 267 A.D.2d 343, 700 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated June 17, 1999, which, after a jury verdict in her favor, granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial.

[344]*344Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the verdict is reinstated.

A verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the evidence so preponderates in favor of the moving party that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Gomez v Park Donuts, 249 AD2d 266; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Since the jury verdict could have been reached upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, it should not have been disturbed (see, Pedone v B & B Equip. Co., 239 AD2d 397; Nicastro v Park, supra). The injured plaintiff exited a vehicle which was stopped approximately 50 feet from an intersection, moved between stopped cars, and was struck by the defendant’s vehicle in an adjoining lane of traffic. Accordingly, there was ample testimony from which the jury could reasonably have concluded that although the defendant was negligent under the broad duties imposed on a driver, the injured plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see, Schaefer v Guddemi, 182 AD2d 808; Briccio v Dishrow, 212 AD2d 565; Moskowitz v Israel, 209 AD2d 676; Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 AD2d 525). Bracken, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nieves v. 8 Ave. Furniture, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 2105 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Collazo v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority
68 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Polidoro v. D'Angelo
2 A.D.3d 428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
El-Shafaie v. Verma
2 A.D.3d 394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Lockhart v. Adirondack Transit Lines, Inc.
305 A.D.2d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
DeLuca v. Bensonhurst Grocery
303 A.D.2d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Ferrante v. County of Nassau
301 A.D.2d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Turner v. City of New York
297 A.D.2d 285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Playball at Hauppauge, Inc. v. Narotzky
296 A.D.2d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Cona v. Dwyer
292 A.D.2d 562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Jennings v. DeFreitas
283 A.D.2d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Farrell v. Lewarn
275 A.D.2d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 A.D.2d 343, 700 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-crimi-nyappdiv-1999.