Strauss v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Strauss v. New York City Transit Authority

294 A.D.2d 173, 742 N.Y.S.2d 38, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4982

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

DecidedMay 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 173 (Strauss v. New York City Transit 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

Strauss v. New York City Transit Authority, 294 A.D.2d 173, 742 N.Y.S.2d 38, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered May 8, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by defendant’s brief, granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury’s finding that she was 40% comparatively negligent, and ordered a new trial on the issue of apportionment unless defendant agreed to reduce plaintiffs portion to 5% unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, the motion denied and the jury’s verdict reinstated.

There was evidence at trial of four or five inches of snow left on the ground from a snowfall two days before plaintiffs accident, a large and visible ice patch, and a clear section of sidewalk on which it was possible to walk around the ice patch. Plaintiff testified that she was looking straight ahead, not at the ground, as she approached the entrance to the subway station. The trial court exercised its discretion improvidently when it found that the jury’s determination of 40% liability against plaintiff could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered May 8, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by defendant’s brief, granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury’s finding that she was 40% comparatively negligent, and ordered a new trial on the issue of apportionment unless defendant agreed to reduce plaintiffs portion to 5% unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, the motion denied and the jury’s verdict reinstated.

There was evidence at trial of four or five inches of snow left on the ground from a snowfall two days before plaintiffs accident, a large and visible ice patch, and a clear section of sidewalk on which it was possible to walk around the ice patch. Plaintiff testified that she was looking straight ahead, not at the ground, as she approached the entrance to the subway station. The trial court exercised its discretion improvidently when it found that the jury’s determination of 40% liability against plaintiff could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 173, 742 N.Y.S.2d 38, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strauss-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack