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.
Hector Manuel CRUZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Phillip RICHARDSON et al., Defendants–Respondents, Vincent Lynch, Defendant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered July 12, 2019, in favor of defendants NYCTA and Richardson, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered May 29, 2018, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial under CPLR 4404(a), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The jury's finding that NYCTA bus driver defendant Richardson was not negligent in striking the van in which plaintiff was riding was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see McDermott v. Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 A.D.3d 195, 206, 777 N.Y.S.2d 103 [1st Dept. 2004]). The jury clearly resolved issues of credibility in Richardson's favor and credited the eyewitness testimony that the bus had stopped at the stop sign before the van, and was already in the process of turning right when the van tried to squeeze into the turn by passing the bus on its right, despite the fact that the roadway was not wide enough for both vehicles. This is supported by testimony of the NYCTA investigator and by the parties’ respective experts who agreed that the van was traveling faster than the bus at the time of impact. This determination by the jury is entitled to deference (see Haiyan Lu v. Spinelli, 44 A.D.3d 546, 546, 844 N.Y.S.2d 228 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 716, 862 N.Y.S.2d 468, 892 N.E.2d 862 [2008]). Despite the conflicting testimony, the jury could have fairly concluded that defendant Richardson failed to see the van before the accident, not because he was negligent, but because the van was not visible until it started to pass the bus, due to the streets curvature, as opined by defendants’ expert accident reconstructionist, and that the van operator's negligence in trying to make the turn when there was not enough room for his vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Glassberg v. Filco Carting Corp., 102 A.D.3d 471, 472, 958 N.Y.S.2d 123 [1st Dept. 2013]; Godfrey v. G.E. Capital Auto Lease, Inc., 89 A.D.3d 471, 477, 933 N.Y.S.2d 208 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 816, 2012 WL 5309244 [2012]).
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.
Docket No: 13150
Decided: February 16, 2021
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)