Wasson v. Barba

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wasson v. Barba

287 A.D.2d 711, 732 N.Y.S.2d 91, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10058

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 711 (Wasson v. Barba) 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

Wasson v. Barba, 287 A.D.2d 711, 732 N.Y.S.2d 91, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated March 1, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $461,000, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the same judgment.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the [712]*712facts, and a new trial on the issue of liability only is granted, with costs to abide the event; the jury’s findings of fact as to damages are affirmed.

The plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant Michael Barba, was injured when Barba’s vehicle skidded on icy, unsanded, unsalted pavement on Forest Park Drive, a gated thoroughfare traversing a New York City park in Queens, and skidded into a tree. The jury found the City of New York 100% at fault in the happening of the accident. Contrary to the City’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion, made at the close of evidence, to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to establish a prima facie case against it. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see, Smith v Hercules Constr. Corp., 274 AD2d 467), there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that the City was negligent and that its negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. However, the jury’s finding that the City was 100% at fault in the happening of the accident was against the weight of the credible evidence. The jury’s failure to apportion any fault to Barba is not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The City’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Cozier, 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 defendant City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated March 1, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $461,000, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the same judgment.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the [712]*712facts, and a new trial on the issue of liability only is granted, with costs to abide the event; the jury’s findings of fact as to damages are affirmed.

The plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant Michael Barba, was injured when Barba’s vehicle skidded on icy, unsanded, unsalted pavement on Forest Park Drive, a gated thoroughfare traversing a New York City park in Queens, and skidded into a tree. The jury found the City of New York 100% at fault in the happening of the accident. Contrary to the City’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion, made at the close of evidence, to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to establish a prima facie case against it. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see, Smith v Hercules Constr. Corp., 274 AD2d 467), there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that the City was negligent and that its negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. However, the jury’s finding that the City was 100% at fault in the happening of the accident was against the weight of the credible evidence. The jury’s failure to apportion any fault to Barba is not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The City’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 711, 732 N.Y.S.2d 91, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wasson-v-barba-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack