Sahl v. Rodriguez

Opinion

Sahl v Rodriguez

2026 NY Slip Op 04525

July 22, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

William Sahl, appellant,

v

Roberto Rodriguez, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 22, 2026

2024-00757, 2024-01602, (Index No. 1985/17)

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Deborah A. Dowling

Carl J. Landicino

James P. McCormack, JJ.

Joseph T. Adragna, Huntington, NY, for appellant.

Zaklukiewicz, Puzo & Morrissey LLP, Islip Terrace, NY (Joseph M. Puzo of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a clerk's extract of the minutes of trial dated October 3, 2023, and (2) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Robert F. Quinlan, J.), dated December 6, 2023. The order denied the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendants Roberto Rodriguez, Educational Bus Transportation, Inc., and Suffolk County on the issue of liability in the interest of justice and for a new trial.

ORDERED that the appeal from the clerk's extract of the minutes of trial is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a clerk's extract of the minutes of trial (see Promenade Nursing Home, Inc. v City of New York, 191 AD3d 1025, 1025); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Roberto Rodriguez, Educational Bus Transportation, Inc., and Suffolk County.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendants Roberto Rodriguez, Educational Bus Transportation, Inc., and Suffolk County (hereinafter collectively the defendants), among others, alleging that the plaintiff sustained injuries when a van he was driving collided with a bus. After a trial on the issue of liability, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict in the interest of justice and for a new trial. In an order dated December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff appeals.

Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a court "may set aside a verdict or any judgment entered thereon and direct that judgment be entered in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law or it may order a new trial of a cause of action or separable issue where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence [or] in the interest of justice." "A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered [*2]evidence, and surprise" (D'Amato v WDF Dev., LLC, 183 AD3d 695, 696 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Russo v Levat, 143 AD3d 966, 968). In considering such a motion, "the Trial Judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected and must look to his or her own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision" (D'Amato v WDF Dev., LLC, 183 AD3d at 696 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Micallef v Miehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Goss Dexter, 39 NY2d 376, 381).

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict in the interest of justice and for a new trial. The plaintiff contends that the court erred when, during closing arguments, it sustained an objection from the defendants' counsel to certain remarks made by the plaintiff's counsel about the observations of a witness to the accident. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the court's determination in that regard did not constitute error, since the remarks were not supported by the record (see Acosta v City of New York, 153 AD3d 765, 768), and did not deprive him of substantial justice (see Allen v Uh, 82 AD3d 1025, 1025). Additionally, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, remarks made by the defendants' counsel during closing argument regarding the plaintiff's purported motivation for commencing the action were isolated and not so prejudicial as to have deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial (see Bacchus v Restaurant Depot, LLC, 234 AD3d 903, 905) and did not otherwise deprive him of substantial justice (see Allen v Uh, 82 AD3d at 1025).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is not properly before this Court.

DILLON, J.P., DOWLING, LANDICINO and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court