Cintron v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cintron v. New York City Transit Authority

19 A.D.3d 166, 798 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6120

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

DecidedJune 9, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 166 (Cintron v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Cintron v. New York City Transit Authority, 19 A.D.3d 166, 798 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, J.), entered January 21, 2004, which set aside a jury verdict finding defendant 70% culpable and the infant plaintiff 30% culpable and dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the jury verdict as to liability reinstated and the matter remanded for a new trial on the issues of apportionment and damages unless plaintiff, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order, stipulates to an apportionment of 50%-50% in which event the matter is remanded for a trial on damages only.

The jury’s verdict on liability cannot be said to be irrational as a matter of law (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]), in light of evidence that the operator could have seen plaintiff in time to stop the train. Nor can it be said to be against the weight of the evidence (Lewis v Progressive Agency, 6 AD3d 293 [2004]; Jamal v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 280 AD2d 421, 422 [2001]). However, we believe that the jury’s apportionment of liability is against the weight of the evidence and that our suggested reapportionment of liability more reasonably reflects the reality of the circumstances here (see Roseboro v New York City Tr. Auth., 10 AD3d 524 [2004]; Mena v New York City Tr. Auth., 238 AD2d 159 [1997]; Robinson v New York City Tr. Auth., 105 AD2d 614 [1984]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, J.), entered January 21, 2004, which set aside a jury verdict finding defendant 70% culpable and the infant plaintiff 30% culpable and dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the jury verdict as to liability reinstated and the matter remanded for a new trial on the issues of apportionment and damages unless plaintiff, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order, stipulates to an apportionment of 50%-50% in which event the matter is remanded for a trial on damages only.

The jury’s verdict on liability cannot be said to be irrational as a matter of law (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]), in light of evidence that the operator could have seen plaintiff in time to stop the train. Nor can it be said to be against the weight of the evidence (Lewis v Progressive Agency, 6 AD3d 293 [2004]; Jamal v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 280 AD2d 421, 422 [2001]). However, we believe that the jury’s apportionment of liability is against the weight of the evidence and that our suggested reapportionment of liability more reasonably reflects the reality of the circumstances here (see Roseboro v New York City Tr. Auth., 10 AD3d 524 [2004]; Mena v New York City Tr. Auth., 238 AD2d 159 [1997]; Robinson v New York City Tr. Auth., 105 AD2d 614 [1984]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 166, 798 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cintron-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack