| Price v Grant |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01786 [60 AD3d 746] |
| March 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Alecia Price, Appellant, v Michael A. Grant, Defendant,and Joshua P. Cittadino et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Rory L. Lubin ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated September 18, 2007, which,upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants Joshua P. Cittadino and Alfred J. Cittadino,dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants, and (2) an order of thesame court entered October 29, 2007, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to setaside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant Michael Grant. Thatvehicle was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by the defendant Joshua Cittadino at aT-shaped intersection on a roadway with two southbound lanes and two northbound lanes. Theplaintiff and Grant alleged that Grant was attempting to make a left turn from the left southboundlane when Cittadino, also proceeding southbound, at an excessive rate of speed, crossed into thenorthbound lane in an attempt to pass Grant on the left. Cittadino alleged that he was driving inthe left southbound lane through a green light at the intersection when Grant suddenly attemptedto make a left turn or u-turn from the right southbound lane.[*2]
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the jury's findingsthat both Grant and Cittadino were negligent but that Cittadino's negligence was not a proximatecause of the accident were not "factually inconsistent and logically impossible" since Cittadino'snegligence was not "inextricably interwoven" with a finding of proximate cause (Martin v Clark, 47 AD3d 981,983 [2008]; Ahr v Karolewski, 32AD3d 805, 806 [2006]). In addition, because the jury could have credited Cittadino'stestimony that Grant must have made a sudden left turn from the right lane, the verdict was notcontrary to the weight of the evidence (see Griffin v Pennoyer, 49 AD3d 341, 342 [2008]; Saggio v Ladone, 21 AD3d 407[2005]; Nazario v Stalica, 272 AD2d 903 [2000]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d129 [1985]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.