BUTLER v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2009)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated September 4, 2008, which granted the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict in their favor, and for a new trial.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff's motion is denied, the jury verdict is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

 “A jury's finding that a party was at fault but that [such] fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are ‘so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause’ ” (Schaefer v. Guddemi, 182 A.D.2d 808, 809, 582 N.Y.S.2d 803, quoting Rubin v. Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d 525, 527, 529 N.Y.S.2d 142).  “A contention that a verdict is inconsistent and irreconcilable must be reviewed in the context of the court's charge, and where it can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” (Rivera v. MTA Long Is. Bus, 45 A.D.3d 557, 558, 845 N.Y.S.2d 394;  see Rubin v. Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d at 527, 529 N.Y.S.2d 142).

 Here, a finding of proximate cause did not inevitably flow from the finding of culpable conduct, and a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury verdict in favor of the defendants.   Applying the Supreme Court's charge regarding the broad duties and general obligations of a driver, the jury could reasonably have found that the defendant Emmanuel Ampofo (hereinafter the defendant driver) was negligent in failing to see the plaintiff's vehicle prior to the collision, but that “the defendant[ driver's] negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident given the speed with which the accident occurred” (Abre v. Sherman, 36 A.D.3d 725, 726, 830 N.Y.S.2d 207;  see Rivera v. MTA Long Is. Bus, 45 A.D.3d at 558, 845 N.Y.S.2d 394;  Serra v. Rivieccio, 4 A.D.3d 521, 522, 771 N.Y.S.2d 701;  Rubin v. Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d at 527, 529 N.Y.S.2d 142).

 Furthermore, “[t]he plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court should have reinstructed the jury on the issue of proximate cause after it returned an initial inconsistent verdict is not preserved for appellate review” (Meade v. Hisler, 306 A.D.2d 387, 387, 760 N.Y.S.2d 891;  see Rokitka v. Barrett, 303 A.D.2d 983, 984, 757 N.Y.S.2d 184).   In any event, under the circumstances present here, “a new trial is not required on the ground that the trial court failed to give the [jurors] further instructions on proximate cause when it directed them to reconsider their verdict” (Mayer v. Goldberg, 241 A.D.2d 309, 312, 659 N.Y.S.2d 877;  see Meade v. Hisler, 306 A.D.2d at 387, 760 N.Y.S.2d 891;  Rokitka v. Barrett, 303 A.D.2d at 984, 757 N.Y.S.2d 184;  cf. Roberts v. County of Westchester, 278 A.D.2d 216, 217, 717 N.Y.S.2d 276;  Cortes v. Edoo, 228 A.D.2d 463, 465, 644 N.Y.S.2d 289).

Accordingly the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial.