Nunziata v. Birchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nunziata v. Birchell

238 A.D.2d 555, 656 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4389

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

DecidedApril 28, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 555 (Nunziata v. Birchell) 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

Nunziata v. Birchell, 238 A.D.2d 555, 656 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated March 25, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of [556]*556the defendants on the issue of liability, and upon an order of the same court dated December 19,1995, denying the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict, was in favor of the defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the facts, the order dated December 19, 1995, is vacated, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 which was to set aside the jury verdict is granted, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The automobile driven by the plaintiff Kim Nunziata hit the left rear wheel of the automobile driven by the defendant Marie Birchell at the intersection of Woodbury Road and East Street in Hicksville. Birchell’s approach to the intersection was controlled by a stop sign, and she had just entered the intersection, preparing to make a left turn, when the accident occurred.

Notwithstanding Birchell’s testimony that despite the fact that she stopped at the stop sign and looked both ways for about two minutes, she saw no approaching vehicles, the proof established.that she proceeded into the intersection without yielding the right of way to Nunziata in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a). Such a violation constitutes negligence as a matter of law and cannot be disregarded by the jury (see, Weiser v Dalbo, 184 AD2d 935, 936). Furthermore, Birchell’s testimony confirms that she did not see what, by the proper use of her senses, she should have seen (see, Lester v Jolicofur, 120 AD2d 574, 574-575; Weiser v Dalbo, supra, at 936).

On these facts the jury could not have returned a verdict that Birchell was not negligent on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Mohamed v Frische, 223 AD2d 628; Dellavecchia v Zorros, 231 AD2d 549). Thus, its verdict should have been set aside and a new trial granted (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 497). Miller, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, 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 plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated March 25, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of [556]*556the defendants on the issue of liability, and upon an order of the same court dated December 19,1995, denying the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict, was in favor of the defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the facts, the order dated December 19, 1995, is vacated, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 which was to set aside the jury verdict is granted, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The automobile driven by the plaintiff Kim Nunziata hit the left rear wheel of the automobile driven by the defendant Marie Birchell at the intersection of Woodbury Road and East Street in Hicksville. Birchell’s approach to the intersection was controlled by a stop sign, and she had just entered the intersection, preparing to make a left turn, when the accident occurred.

Notwithstanding Birchell’s testimony that despite the fact that she stopped at the stop sign and looked both ways for about two minutes, she saw no approaching vehicles, the proof established.that she proceeded into the intersection without yielding the right of way to Nunziata in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a). Such a violation constitutes negligence as a matter of law and cannot be disregarded by the jury (see, Weiser v Dalbo, 184 AD2d 935, 936). Furthermore, Birchell’s testimony confirms that she did not see what, by the proper use of her senses, she should have seen (see, Lester v Jolicofur, 120 AD2d 574, 574-575; Weiser v Dalbo, supra, at 936).

On these facts the jury could not have returned a verdict that Birchell was not negligent on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Mohamed v Frische, 223 AD2d 628; Dellavecchia v Zorros, 231 AD2d 549). Thus, its verdict should have been set aside and a new trial granted (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 497). Miller, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 555, 656 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunziata-v-birchell-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack