Sarosy v. Scheina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarosy v. Scheina

225 A.D.2d 493, 639 N.Y.2d 817, 639 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 493 (Sarosy v. Scheina) 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

Sarosy v. Scheina, 225 A.D.2d 493, 639 N.Y.2d 817, 639 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[494]*494A reasonable view of the evidence supports the jury’s findings that, although defendant operated his vehicle negligently, the sole proximate cause of the accident was plaintiff’s failure to drive with her car lights on as she approached the intersection; such findings are not inconsistent (see, Gross v Napoli, 216 AD2d 524). There is no merit to plaintiffs’ claim that the court’s instruction that each party was under a duty "to have the automobile under reasonable control and to keep a proper lookout under the circumstances then existing, to see and be aware of what was in their view and to use reasonable care to avoid an accident” did not adequately convey the principle set forth in PJI 2:77 that drivers are negligent if they fail to see that which they should have seen. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

[494]*494A reasonable view of the evidence supports the jury’s findings that, although defendant operated his vehicle negligently, the sole proximate cause of the accident was plaintiff’s failure to drive with her car lights on as she approached the intersection; such findings are not inconsistent (see, Gross v Napoli, 216 AD2d 524). There is no merit to plaintiffs’ claim that the court’s instruction that each party was under a duty "to have the automobile under reasonable control and to keep a proper lookout under the circumstances then existing, to see and be aware of what was in their view and to use reasonable care to avoid an accident” did not adequately convey the principle set forth in PJI 2:77 that drivers are negligent if they fail to see that which they should have seen. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 493, 639 N.Y.2d 817, 639 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarosy-v-scheina-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack