Edwards v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edwards v. City of New York

41 A.D.3d 532, 839 N.Y.S.2d 104

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 12, 2007·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 17, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff sustained injuries when she allegedly tripped [533] and fell on a crack in the sidewalk owned by the defendant. The jury initially returned an inconsistent verdict and then, upon further instruction, completed a new special verdict sheet in favor of the defendant.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the verdict sheet was not improper (see Harmon v BIC Corp., 16 AD3d 953, 954 [2005]; Dunn v Moss, 193 AD2d 983, 985 [1993]). Because the disputed questions submitted to the jury as to whether the sidewalk was reasonably safe and, if not, whether the defendant was negligent, presented two distinct issues (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; PJI3d 2:225A [2005]), it was not incorrect to present them as separate interrogatories. Further, the court’s decision to allow the jury to reconsider its inconsistent verdict was proper under these circumstances (see Meade v Hisler, 306 AD2d 387 [2003]). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Angiolillo, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 17, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff sustained injuries when she allegedly tripped [533] and fell on a crack in the sidewalk owned by the defendant. The jury initially returned an inconsistent verdict and then, upon further instruction, completed a new special verdict sheet in favor of the defendant.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the verdict sheet was not improper (see Harmon v BIC Corp., 16 AD3d 953, 954 [2005]; Dunn v Moss, 193 AD2d 983, 985 [1993]). Because the disputed questions submitted to the jury as to whether the sidewalk was reasonably safe and, if not, whether the defendant was negligent, presented two distinct issues (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; PJI3d 2:225A [2005]), it was not incorrect to present them as separate interrogatories. Further, the court’s decision to allow the jury to reconsider its inconsistent verdict was proper under these circumstances (see Meade v Hisler, 306 AD2d 387 [2003]). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Edwards v. City of New York, 41 A.D.3d 532, 839 N.Y.S.2d 104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

41 A.D.3d 532 (Edwards v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related