Dunn v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dunn v. City of New York

301 A.D.2d 493, 752 N.Y.S.2d 895

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 493 (Dunn v. City of New York) 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

Dunn v. City of New York, 301 A.D.2d 493, 752 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals (1), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated May 10, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability, and (2) from an interlocutory judgment of the same court, entered October 30, 2001, upon the jury verdict.

Ordered that the order and interlocutory judgment are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could have concluded that it was “more likely” or “more reasonable” that a vehicle crossed over to the plaintiff’s side of the road, and caused an accident because of the appellant’s negligent design and signage of the area rather “than by some other agency” (Gayle v City of New York, 92 NY2d 936, 937; see Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743). Furthermore, the jury determination that an oncoming vehicle entered the plaintiff’s lane of traffic was not against the weight of the evidence since it was supported by a “fair interpretation” of the evidence adduced at trial (Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

Finally, under the circumstances of this case, reversal is not warranted on the basis of the trial court’s erroneous admission of testimony regarding alleged prior accidents at the subject intersection (see Grcic v City of New York, 139 AD2d 621; Giordano v MacMurray Motors, 18 AD2d 916). Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals (1), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated May 10, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability, and (2) from an interlocutory judgment of the same court, entered October 30, 2001, upon the jury verdict.

Ordered that the order and interlocutory judgment are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could have concluded that it was “more likely” or “more reasonable” that a vehicle crossed over to the plaintiff’s side of the road, and caused an accident because of the appellant’s negligent design and signage of the area rather “than by some other agency” (Gayle v City of New York, 92 NY2d 936, 937; see Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743). Furthermore, the jury determination that an oncoming vehicle entered the plaintiff’s lane of traffic was not against the weight of the evidence since it was supported by a “fair interpretation” of the evidence adduced at trial (Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

Finally, under the circumstances of this case, reversal is not warranted on the basis of the trial court’s erroneous admission of testimony regarding alleged prior accidents at the subject intersection (see Grcic v City of New York, 139 AD2d 621; Giordano v MacMurray Motors, 18 AD2d 916). Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 493, 752 N.Y.S.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack