Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Valerie McGUIRE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Leroy COBB, et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants, Steven B. Hughes, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered April 1, 1997, after a jury trial, which, inter alia, apportioned liability 25% against defendants Leroy Cobb and Times Cab Corp. and 75% against defendants Steven B. Hughes and Frances H. Hughes, and which, upon the partial grant of defendants' motion to set aside the jury verdict, awarded plaintiff, pursuant to stipulation, the reduced amounts of $200,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was injured when the taxi cab she was entering, driven by defendant Cobb, was hit from behind by another taxi cab driven by defendant Hughes. Contrary to the contentions of Cobb and his cab's owner, the Times Cab Corporation, however, the jury's failure to apportion liability exclusively against the Hughes defendants was not incompatible with “fair interpretation of the evidence” (see, Mazariegos v. New York City Transit Authority, 230 A.D.2d 608, 609, 645 N.Y.S.2d 802; Lolik v. Big v. Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163). Specifically, the jury's determination not to hold the Hughes defendants exclusively liable was supportable given evidence that the Cobb vehicle had stopped in a lane of moving traffic and that it may well have cut off the Hughes vehicle (see, Niemiec v. Jones, 237 A.D.2d 267, 654 N.Y.S.2d 163).
We have considered the parties' other arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 07, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)