CRAMER v. SCHRUEFER (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the amended judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the posttrial motion is granted, the verdict is set aside, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries he sustained while riding his motorcycle when defendant's vehicle turned left in front of him. Following a trial on liability, the jury returned a verdict finding that defendant was not negligent, and Supreme Court denied plaintiff's CPLR 4404(a) motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. A verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless “the preponderance of the evidence in favor of the moving party is so great that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Siemucha v. Garrison, 111 A.D.3d 1398, 1401, 975 N.Y.S.2d 518 (4th Dept. 2013) [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Wilson v. Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp., 307 A.D.2d 748, 748, 762 N.Y.S.2d 556 (4th Dept. 2003); see also Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163 [1995]). A court should be guided by the rule that, “if the verdict is one that reasonable persons could have rendered after receiving conflicting evidence, the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the jury” (McMillian v. Burden, 136 A.D.3d 1342, 1343, 24 N.Y.S.3d 822 (4th Dept. 2016) [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Siemucha, 111 A.D.3d at 1401–1402, 975 N.Y.S.2d 518). Here, as the court charged the jury, “defendant had a common-law duty to see that which [he] should have seen through the proper use of [his] senses” (Larsen v. Spano, 35 A.D.3d 820, 822, 827 N.Y.S.2d 276 (2d Dept. 2006); see Rebay v. Tormey, 2 A.D.3d 826, 827, 769 N.Y.S.2d 386 (2d Dept. 2003)). The evidence undisputedly established that the area of the accident did not have any obstructions and that defendant had a clear line of sight of oncoming traffic. Inasmuch as defendant admitted at trial that he never saw plaintiff or his motorcycle prior to the accident, we conclude that the finding that defendant was not negligent could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Casaregola v. Farkouh, 1 A.D.3d 306, 306–307, 767 N.Y.S.2d 57 (2d Dept. 2003); Hernandez v. Joseph, 143 A.D.2d 632, 632, 533 N.Y.S.2d 13 (2d Dept. 1988); Thompson v. Korn, 48 A.D.2d 1007, 1008, 368 N.Y.S.2d 923 (4th Dept. 1975)). We therefore reverse the amended judgment, grant plaintiff's posttrial motion, set aside the verdict, reinstate the complaint, and grant a new trial. In light of our determination, we do not address plaintiff's remaining contentions.