Cucuzza v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cucuzza v. New York City Transit Authority

251 A.D.2d 445, 673 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6853

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1998·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), dated July 1, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and a determination denying the plaintiffs application, inter alia, to set aside the verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed with costs.

We find no merit to the plaintiffs contention that the court improperly denied his motion to set aside the verdict. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, Marrero v 720 DeGraw Funding Corp., 199 AD2d 248), the jury could have rationally concluded that the defendant provided an adequate nonnegligent explanation for this rear-end collision (see, Varsi v Stoll, 161 AD2d 590; Silberman v Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 AD2d 833). Moreover, the jury verdict in favor of the defendant was not against the weight of the evidence and should not be disturbed (see, Torrillo v Command Bus Co., 206 AD2d 520; Varsi v Stoll, supra; see generally, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiffs remaining contention does not warrant reversal of the judgment appealed from. Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), dated July 1, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and a determination denying the plaintiffs application, inter alia, to set aside the verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed with costs.

We find no merit to the plaintiffs contention that the court improperly denied his motion to set aside the verdict. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, Marrero v 720 DeGraw Funding Corp., 199 AD2d 248), the jury could have rationally concluded that the defendant provided an adequate nonnegligent explanation for this rear-end collision (see, Varsi v Stoll, 161 AD2d 590; Silberman v Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 AD2d 833). Moreover, the jury verdict in favor of the defendant was not against the weight of the evidence and should not be disturbed (see, Torrillo v Command Bus Co., 206 AD2d 520; Varsi v Stoll, supra; see generally, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiffs remaining contention does not warrant reversal of the judgment appealed from. Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cucuzza v. New York City Transit Authority, 251 A.D.2d 445, 673 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 445 (Cucuzza v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related