O'Mara v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Mara v. City of New York

31 A.D.3d 340, 819 N.Y.S.2d 263

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

DecidedJuly 27, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.3d 340 (O'Mara 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

O'Mara v. City of New York, 31 A.D.3d 340, 819 N.Y.S.2d 263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne E. Targum, J.), entered January 12, 2005, after a jury trial, upon a verdict in favor of defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A verdict should not be set aside unless the jury could not [341]*341have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004]). Particular deference is to be accorded a jury verdict in favor of a defendant in a tort action (id. at 206-207). Thus, given that plaintiff, a mounted police officer who suffered a severe injury to the right temple area of her head, was unable to recall being thrown from her horse in the practice ring, and given her expert’s concession that, depending on the circumstances, a properly fitted riding helmet would not always protect a person’s head from a hard impact, the trial court properly denied plaintiffs motion to set aside, as against the weight of the evidence, the jury’s verdict that, although the City was negligent in failing to provide plaintiff with a properly fitted helmet, such negligence was not a substantial cause of her accident.

We have considered plaintiffs other points regarding allegedly inconsistent findings, the allegedly improper bifurcation of the trial, the court’s limitation of questioning of plaintiffs expert, and the submission of the issue of defendant Gonzalez’s comparative negligence to the jury, and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Andrias, Williams, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne E. Targum, J.), entered January 12, 2005, after a jury trial, upon a verdict in favor of defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A verdict should not be set aside unless the jury could not [341]*341have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004]). Particular deference is to be accorded a jury verdict in favor of a defendant in a tort action (id. at 206-207). Thus, given that plaintiff, a mounted police officer who suffered a severe injury to the right temple area of her head, was unable to recall being thrown from her horse in the practice ring, and given her expert’s concession that, depending on the circumstances, a properly fitted riding helmet would not always protect a person’s head from a hard impact, the trial court properly denied plaintiffs motion to set aside, as against the weight of the evidence, the jury’s verdict that, although the City was negligent in failing to provide plaintiff with a properly fitted helmet, such negligence was not a substantial cause of her accident.

We have considered plaintiffs other points regarding allegedly inconsistent findings, the allegedly improper bifurcation of the trial, the court’s limitation of questioning of plaintiffs expert, and the submission of the issue of defendant Gonzalez’s comparative negligence to the jury, and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Andrias, Williams, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 340, 819 N.Y.S.2d 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omara-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack