DeLuca v. Bensonhurst Grocery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeLuca v. Bensonhurst Grocery

303 A.D.2d 541, 756 N.Y.S.2d 458

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Bensonhurst Grocery and Shayer Ahmid Said appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), entered January 30, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $302,077.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the jury verdict finding that the injured plaintiff was negligent, but that her negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, was not against the weight of the evidence, as the jury’s finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]; Campbell v Crimi, 267 AD2d 343, 344 [1999]). Under the facts of this case, the issues were not “ ‘so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause’ ” (Reese v New York City Bd. of Educ., 297 AD2d 793 [2002], quoting Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 AD2d 525, 527 [1988]; cf. Ferrante v County of Nassau, 301 AD2d 565 [2003]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Mastro, 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, etc., the defendants Bensonhurst Grocery and Shayer Ahmid Said appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), entered January 30, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $302,077.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the jury verdict finding that the injured plaintiff was negligent, but that her negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, was not against the weight of the evidence, as the jury’s finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]; Campbell v Crimi, 267 AD2d 343, 344 [1999]). Under the facts of this case, the issues were not “ ‘so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause’ ” (Reese v New York City Bd. of Educ., 297 AD2d 793 [2002], quoting Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 AD2d 525, 527 [1988]; cf. Ferrante v County of Nassau, 301 AD2d 565 [2003]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

DeLuca v. Bensonhurst Grocery, 303 A.D.2d 541, 756 N.Y.S.2d 458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

303 A.D.2d 541 (DeLuca v. Bensonhurst Grocery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related