Francis v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Francis v. New York City Transit Authority

237 A.D.2d 107, 654 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2117

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 107 (Francis v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Francis v. New York City Transit Authority, 237 A.D.2d 107, 654 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about June 19, 1996, which granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict and directed a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ bus driver’s awareness of the presence of the car ahead for at least 15 seconds and for over a block and a half precludes a finding that the action of the car in stopping was so sudden and unexpected as to warrant an emergency doctrine charge (see, Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327). In view of the trial court’s prior correct decision rejecting defendants’ request for an emergency doctrine charge, it was error not to recharge the jury once a modified version of that doctrine was charged due to inadvertent error. Furthermore, the verdict in favor of defendants was properly set aside as against the weight of the evidence in view of the bus driver’s admission that, although he was aware of the presence of the car for over a block and a half, he looked away and noticed brake lights only after the car was completely stopped, resulting in his having to suddenly brake to avoid a collision. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about June 19, 1996, which granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict and directed a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ bus driver’s awareness of the presence of the car ahead for at least 15 seconds and for over a block and a half precludes a finding that the action of the car in stopping was so sudden and unexpected as to warrant an emergency doctrine charge (see, Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327). In view of the trial court’s prior correct decision rejecting defendants’ request for an emergency doctrine charge, it was error not to recharge the jury once a modified version of that doctrine was charged due to inadvertent error. Furthermore, the verdict in favor of defendants was properly set aside as against the weight of the evidence in view of the bus driver’s admission that, although he was aware of the presence of the car for over a block and a half, he looked away and noticed brake lights only after the car was completely stopped, resulting in his having to suddenly brake to avoid a collision. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 107, 654 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack