| Ruggiero v Weth |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08002 [122 AD3d 828] |
| November 19, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Richard Ruggiero, Appellant, v Thomas Weth,Respondent. |
Mahon, Mahon, Kerins & O'Brien, LLC, Garden City South, N.Y. (Joseph A.Hyland of counsel), for appellant.
Russo, Apoznanski & Tambasco (Montfort, Healy, McGuire &Salley, Garden City, N.Y. [Donald S. Neumann, Jr.], of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bruno, J.), dated May 8, 2013, which,upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the evidence,for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, upon a jury verdict, and upon thedenial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to theweight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendant and against himdismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motionpursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. Amotion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 may be granted wherethe trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational processby which the trier of fact could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party (see PAS Tech. Servs., Inc. vMiddle Vil. Healthcare Mgt., LLC, 92 AD3d 742 [2012]; Robinson v 211-11 N., LLC,46 AD3d 657, 658 [2007]; C.K. Rehner, Inc. v Arnell Constr. Corp., 303AD2d 439, 440 [2003]). In considering such a motion, " 'the trial court mustafford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn fromthe facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to thenonmovant' " (Robinson v 211-11 N., LLC, 46 AD3d at 658, quotingSzczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). Here, viewing the evidence in thelight most favorable to the defendant, a rational process existed by which the jury couldfind that, although he was negligent, his negligence was not a substantial factor incausing the accident.
A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unlessthe jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence(see Lolik v Big v Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Scalogna v Osipov, 117 AD3d934 [2014]; Crooks v E.Peters, LLC, 103 AD3d 828, 829 [2013]; Verizon N.Y., Inc. v Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., 100AD3d 983 [2012]). "A jury's finding that a party was at fault but that such fault wasnot a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of theevidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logicallyimpossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause" (Garrett v Manaser, 8 AD3d616, 617 [2004]; seeSliwowski v City of New York, 113 AD3d 749 [2014]; [*2]Niebles v MTA Bus Co., 110 AD3d 1047, 1047[2013]; Spero v Awasthi Ltd.Partners, 106 AD3d 988, 989 [2013]). Here, the Supreme Court properly deniedthe plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to theweight of the evidence and for a new trial. A fair interpretation of the evidence supportedthe jury's determination that the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of theaccident (see Doubrovinskaya vDembitzer, 77 AD3d 609 [2010]).
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court did not err in charging thejury on Motor Vehicle Accidents—Sudden Stopping, set forth in PJI 2:83, as therewas adequate evidence to support that charge (see generally Johnson v White, 85 AD3d 977 [2011]).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Austin, Sgroi andLaSalle, JJ., concur.