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

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 532 (Edwards 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

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

Pincite

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]*533and 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]*533and 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 532, 839 N.Y.S.2d 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack