RIOS v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gina Abadi, J.), dated July 13, 2023.  The judgment, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, in effect, dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured as a passenger in a vehicle driven by Christoffe Cintron (hereinafter the Cintron vehicle), when it collided with a public bus operated by the defendant Loraine Lord. The plaintiff commenced this action against Lord and the defendants New York City Transit Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and MTA Bus Company.  Two other passengers in the Cintron vehicle commenced separate personal injury actions that were joined with this action for the purposes of a trial on the issue of liability (see Garcia v. New York City Tr. Auth., ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2026 WL 1084754 [decided herewith];  Cruz v. Metropolitan Transp.  Auth., ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2026 WL 1084741 [decided herewith] ).

Following the trial on the issue of liability, the jury returned a verdict finding that Lord's negligence in operating the bus was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, that Christoffe Cintron was negligent in operating the Cintron vehicle, and, in effect, that his negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident.  Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside, as against the weight of the evidence, so much of the jury's verdict as found that Lord's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident.  The Supreme Court, among other things, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion.  The court issued a judgment dated July 13, 2023, in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, in effect, dismissing the complaint.  The plaintiff appeals.

For the reasons set forth in our decision and order on a related appeal (see Garcia v. New York City Tr. Auth., ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2026 WL 1084754 [decided herewith] ), the jury's verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Any error in the admission of certain expert testimony proffered by the defendants is harmless, as we are satisfied that the result would have been the same if the alleged errors had not occurred (see CPLR 2002;  Ramrattan v. Resorts World Casino, 221 A.D.3d 629, 629, 198 N.Y.S.3d 408;  Simon v. Granite Bldg. 2, LLC, 170 A.D.3d 1227, 1233, 97 N.Y.S.3d 240).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., FORD, WAN and LOVE, JJ., concur.