Sanchez v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

203 A.D.2d 128, 610 N.Y.S.2d 507
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 19, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 128 (Sanchez v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating 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
Sanchez v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 203 A.D.2d 128, 610 N.Y.S.2d 507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered February 11, 1993, which, after a jury trial, awarded damages of $589,000 to plaintiff Romeo Sanchez, and $200,000 to plaintiff Julia Sanchez, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In order to submit the issue of intoxication to the jury, it is not sufficient that there be merely some evidence that the plaintiff had been drinking, or that there was " 'alcohol on breath’ ” (Arroyo v City of New York, 171 AD2d 541, 543). Here, plaintiff denied any alcohol consumption. While various witnesses noted alcohol on plaintiff’s breath, this observation, standing alone, as noted, does not warrant the giving of an intoxication charge. Only the emergency room physician pur[129]*129ported to find that plaintiff was "intoxicated” in his notation in the hospital record. Nevertheless, the physician had no recollection of any erratic or intoxicated behavior, and no such behavior was recorded in the chart. Further, the physician himself defined "intoxicated” in a way which did not require a finding beyond that of "alcohol on breath.” Under these circumstances, sufficient evidence did not exist to submit the issue to the jury.

The award of damages did not deviate substantially from what would be reasonable compensation. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Towers v. Hoag
40 A.D.3d 244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Rountree v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
261 A.D.2d 324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Bell v. City of New York
256 A.D.2d 290 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 A.D.2d 128, 610 N.Y.S.2d 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-manhattan-bronx-surface-transit-operating-authority-nyappdiv-1994.