Velasquez v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Velasquez v. New York City Transit Authority

37 A.D.3d 707, 828 N.Y.S.2d 906

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 707 (Velasquez 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

Velasquez v. New York City Transit Authority, 37 A.D.3d 707, 828 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered August 18, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CFLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence, and for judgment in his favor as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury’s answers to the first two interrogatories were neither inconsistent nor irreconcilable when viewed in the context of the court’s charge. The jury reasonably could have found that although the defendant driver, Carmelo B. Simon, was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, that negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident and the plaintiffs injuries (see Almestica v Colon, 12 AD3d 627 [2004]; Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 AD2d 525, 526-527 [1988]). Crane, J.E, Goldstein, Lifson and Garni, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered August 18, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CFLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence, and for judgment in his favor as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury’s answers to the first two interrogatories were neither inconsistent nor irreconcilable when viewed in the context of the court’s charge. The jury reasonably could have found that although the defendant driver, Carmelo B. Simon, was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, that negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident and the plaintiffs injuries (see Almestica v Colon, 12 AD3d 627 [2004]; Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 AD2d 525, 526-527 [1988]). Crane, J.E, Goldstein, Lifson and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 707, 828 N.Y.S.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velasquez-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack