Sullivan v. Goksan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sullivan v. Goksan

49 A.D.3d 344, 854 N.Y.2d 305

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 344 (Sullivan v. Goksan) 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

Sullivan v. Goksan, 49 A.D.3d 344, 854 N.Y.2d 305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The jury’s verdict in favor of respondents was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004]), in this action where plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle driven by defendant Lazarus, was injured when a van, owned by respondent Airborne and driven by respondent Goskan, collided into the rear of Lazarus’s vehicle, which was stopped at a red light. Respondents maintained that the collision occurred as a result of the unexpected presence of an oily condition on the street, and Goskan testified as to the nonnegligent operation of his vehicle, including the rate of speed at braking, the distance he maintained from plaintiffs vehicle, the lighting conditions that evening, and the presence of the subject oily puddle. Such testimony was corroborated by respondents’ engineering and accident reconstruction expert, as well as the police officer who responded to the accident. The evidence of Goskan’s negligence came from plaintiff’s engineering and accident reconstruction expert, whose opinion contradicted Goskan’s testimony, and the jury’s decision to credit the testimony of Goskan and the defense [345]*345expert over that of plaintiffs expert is entitled to deference (see Chepel v Meyers, 306 AD2d 235 [2003]).

Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs argument that the trial court improperly denied her motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability fails, and in any event, the motion was premature as it was made prior to the presentation of respondents’ case (see CPLR 4401; Cass v Broome County Coop. Ins. Co., 94 AD2d 822 [1983]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

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

The jury’s verdict in favor of respondents was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004]), in this action where plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle driven by defendant Lazarus, was injured when a van, owned by respondent Airborne and driven by respondent Goskan, collided into the rear of Lazarus’s vehicle, which was stopped at a red light. Respondents maintained that the collision occurred as a result of the unexpected presence of an oily condition on the street, and Goskan testified as to the nonnegligent operation of his vehicle, including the rate of speed at braking, the distance he maintained from plaintiffs vehicle, the lighting conditions that evening, and the presence of the subject oily puddle. Such testimony was corroborated by respondents’ engineering and accident reconstruction expert, as well as the police officer who responded to the accident. The evidence of Goskan’s negligence came from plaintiff’s engineering and accident reconstruction expert, whose opinion contradicted Goskan’s testimony, and the jury’s decision to credit the testimony of Goskan and the defense [345]*345expert over that of plaintiffs expert is entitled to deference (see Chepel v Meyers, 306 AD2d 235 [2003]).

Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs argument that the trial court improperly denied her motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability fails, and in any event, the motion was premature as it was made prior to the presentation of respondents’ case (see CPLR 4401; Cass v Broome County Coop. Ins. Co., 94 AD2d 822 [1983]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 344, 854 N.Y.2d 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-goksan-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack