| Rakoff v New York City Dept. of Educ. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06555 [110 AD3d 780] |
| October 9, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Ira Rakoff, Respondent, v New York CityDepartment of Education et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Jeffrey Lessoff, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baily-Schiffman, J.), entered October 5,2011, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the sumof $327,320.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter isremitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he slipped on a puddle of water in thegymnasium of the defendants' P.S. 225 while he was teaching a physical education classin a summer program for special needs children. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced thisaction alleging that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendants'employees. Specially, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants' employees allowed severalprogram participants to enter the gymnasium while wearing wet clothes and failed toensure that they had sufficiently dried off after an "aqua" class. According to theplaintiff, the water from the wet clothes created the puddle upon which he slipped andfell. After a trial, the Supreme Court entered judgment upon the jury's verdict in theplaintiff's favor. The defendants appeal.
The jury charge in this instance did not adequately convey "the sum and substance ofthe applicable law to be charged" (Phillips v United Artists Communications,201 AD2d 634, 635 [1994]), as it was "ambiguous, inconsistent, erroneous, [and]confusing" (Greshin, Ziegler &Amicizia, LLP v King, 35 AD3d 536, 537 [2006] [internal quotation marksomitted]; see York v St. Mary'sR.C. Church at Manhasset, 22 AD3d 484 [2005]). The error in instructing thejury prejudiced the defendants, necessitating a new trial. The Supreme Court also erred indenying the defendants' request for a jury instruction on the issue of the plaintiff'scomparative negligence. Based upon the evidence adduced at trial, a jury could rationallyconclude that the plaintiff's conduct contributed to his injuries (see Cohen v HallmarkCards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]; Shea v New York City Tr. Auth., 289 AD2d558 [2001]).
The defendants' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not bereached in light of our determination that this matter must be remitted to the SupremeCourt, Kings County, for a new trial. Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ.,concur.