Stoner v. Parr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stoner v. Parr

75 A.D.3d 541, 903 N.Y.S.2d 906

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

DecidedJuly 13, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A.D.3d 541 (Stoner v. Parr) 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

Stoner v. Parr, 75 A.D.3d 541, 903 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Onofry, J.), dated July 8, 2009, as, upon a jury verdict, found them 50% at fault in the happening of the accident, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated September 11, [542]*5422009, as denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) which was to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment and the order are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to instruct the jury pursuant to PJI 2:14 regarding the emergency doctrine. Viewing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the defendants, the Supreme Court correctly determined that any emergency situation which may have existed had dissipated prior to the defendant driver’s negligent operation of the vehicle which struck the plaintiff and, therefore, that there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support the requested instruction (see generally Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172, 175 [2001]; Sweeney v Linde, 59 AD3d 948, 948-949 [2009]; Kizis v Nehring, 27 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2006]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.R, Florio, Belen and Chambers, 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 defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Onofry, J.), dated July 8, 2009, as, upon a jury verdict, found them 50% at fault in the happening of the accident, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated September 11, [542]*5422009, as denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) which was to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment and the order are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to instruct the jury pursuant to PJI 2:14 regarding the emergency doctrine. Viewing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the defendants, the Supreme Court correctly determined that any emergency situation which may have existed had dissipated prior to the defendant driver’s negligent operation of the vehicle which struck the plaintiff and, therefore, that there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support the requested instruction (see generally Caristo v Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172, 175 [2001]; Sweeney v Linde, 59 AD3d 948, 948-949 [2009]; Kizis v Nehring, 27 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2006]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.R, Florio, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.3d 541, 903 N.Y.S.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoner-v-parr-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack