Owens v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Owens v. City of New York

17 A.D.3d 552, 792 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4147

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

DecidedApril 18, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 552 (Owens 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

Owens v. City of New York, 17 A.D.3d 552, 792 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals, by permission, from an amended order of the Appellate Term, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated July 11, 2003, which affirmed a judgment of the Civil Court, Kings County (Waltrous, J.), entered October 11, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon an order of the same court dated April 4, 2000, denying its motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $550,000.

[553]*553Ordered that the amended order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the judgment and the order of the Civil Court, Kings County, are vacated, the motion is granted, the verdict is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

Based on the evidence presented, there was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could possibly lead a rational jury to the conclusion that the appellant’s alleged negligence caused the plaintiffs injuries (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]; Medina v City of New York, 14 AD3d 496 [2005]). In any event, the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries (see Sykes v County of Erie, 263 AD2d 947 [1999], affd 94 NY2d 912 [2000]).

In light of our determination, we do not address the appellant’s remaining contentions. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Spolzino, 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 defendant City of New York appeals, by permission, from an amended order of the Appellate Term, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated July 11, 2003, which affirmed a judgment of the Civil Court, Kings County (Waltrous, J.), entered October 11, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon an order of the same court dated April 4, 2000, denying its motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $550,000.

[553]*553Ordered that the amended order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the judgment and the order of the Civil Court, Kings County, are vacated, the motion is granted, the verdict is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

Based on the evidence presented, there was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could possibly lead a rational jury to the conclusion that the appellant’s alleged negligence caused the plaintiffs injuries (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]; Medina v City of New York, 14 AD3d 496 [2005]). In any event, the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries (see Sykes v County of Erie, 263 AD2d 947 [1999], affd 94 NY2d 912 [2000]).

In light of our determination, we do not address the appellant’s remaining contentions. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 552, 792 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack