Johnson v White
2011 NY Slip Op 05458 [85 AD3d 977]
June 21, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 10, 2011


Christopher Johnson, Appellant,
v
Jeffrey White,Respondent.

[*1]Deprospo, Petrizzo & Longo (Steven A. Kimmel, Washingtonville, N.Y., of counsel),for appellant.

Craig P. Curcio, Middletown, N.Y. (Kevin P. Ahrenholz of counsel), forrespondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment ofthe Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated April 27, 2010, which, upon an order ofthe same court dated February 17, 2010, denying his motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and against him on the issue of liability ascontrary to the weight of the evidence, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly permitted the issue ofintoxication to be raised at trial. The evidence of the plaintiff's intoxication consisted of a policeofficer's personal observations of the plaintiff about an hour before the subject accident andtestimony by the plaintiff's companion as to drinks the plaintiff consumed in the hours leading upto the accident. Such evidence was relevant to the questions of negligence and comparativenegligence, and was more probative than prejudicial. The Supreme Court did not err in chargingthe jury as to intoxication, as there was adequate evidence to support that charge (see PJI2:45; Cona v Dwyer, 292 AD2d 562, 563 [2002]).

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuantto CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Theverdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and was not contrary to the weightof the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Bermudez v New York City Bd. ofEduc., 83 AD3d 878 [2011]; Piazza v Corporate Bldrs. Group, Inc., 73 AD3d 1006, 1006-1007[2010]).

The plaintiff's remaining contention with respect to the jury charge is without merit. Mastro,J.P., Florio, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.