Werner v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Werner v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

210 A.D.2d 184, 620 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13210

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 1994·Published

Opinion

[185]*185—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beau-champ Ciparick, J.), entered August 6, 1993, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On this record, the jury reasonably could have concluded that plaintiff failéd to meet his burden of demonstrating that defendants’ purported negligence in the cleaning of the basement garage was a substantial and proximate cause of the events which produced the injury (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). While there was conflicting testimony concerning the cause of the injury and whether defendants had taken adequate measures to protect against the dangers to be reasonably anticipated, the jury, which was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses (Niewieroski v Natural Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, 425, lv denied 70 NY2d 602), resolved the disputed facts in favor of defendants, and the record, including the court’s charge on foreseeability, does not present a sufficient basis to disturb its verdict (see, Phillips v United Artists Communications, 201 AD2d 634). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Williams and Nardelli, JJ.

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

[185]*185—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beau-champ Ciparick, J.), entered August 6, 1993, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On this record, the jury reasonably could have concluded that plaintiff failéd to meet his burden of demonstrating that defendants’ purported negligence in the cleaning of the basement garage was a substantial and proximate cause of the events which produced the injury (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315). While there was conflicting testimony concerning the cause of the injury and whether defendants had taken adequate measures to protect against the dangers to be reasonably anticipated, the jury, which was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses (Niewieroski v Natural Cleaning Contrs., 126 AD2d 424, 425, lv denied 70 NY2d 602), resolved the disputed facts in favor of defendants, and the record, including the court’s charge on foreseeability, does not present a sufficient basis to disturb its verdict (see, Phillips v United Artists Communications, 201 AD2d 634). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Williams and Nardelli, JJ.

Werner v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 210 A.D.2d 184, 620 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

210 A.D.2d 184 (Werner v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related