KEVIN BLACKBURN v. JOE JAX TRUCKIN INC (2026)

Introduction

This decision supplements the Court's reasoning read into the record when, at trial, it granted Defendants' motion for a directed verdict against Plaintiff upon the close of Plaintiffs' case on July 16, 2026.

Background

This action arose out of an alleged motor vehicle accident that occurred at approximately 7:00 a.m., on August 12, 2019, on Kent Avenue near its intersection with Division Avenue, in the County of Kings, City and State of New York. Jessica Best ("Best") claimed in the complaint that she was riding her bicycle in the bike lane on Kent Avenue, a northbound thoroughfare, when Defendant Michael Moynahan ("Moynahan") crossed into the bike lane and struck her. Moynahan was operating a tractor trailer owned by Defendant Joe Jax Truckin Inc. on Kent Avenue near its intersection with Division Avenue. Best alleged that she sustained numerous injuries, including long-term disabilities.

Plaintiff Kevin Blackburn ("Blackburn") was not a direct witness to the accident as he was bicycling ahead of Best at the time of the alleged accident. Blackburn was and still is the husband of Best and has lived and cohabitated with Best then and ever since the alleged accident took place. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff Blackburn was a party in this matter, alleging that he was deprived of the services, society, companionship, and consortium of his wife.

Plaintiffs Best and Blackburn retained an attorney following the alleged accident. However, prior to trial, Best and Blackburn changed attorneys on four different occasions. At the outset of the trial, Plaintiffs Best and Blackburn represented themselves. The Court notified Best and Blackburn that being represented by counsel was more advantageous. Both Best and Blackburn stated that they understood and still wished to proceed with the trial and represent themselves. During Plaintiffs' presentation of evidence at trial on July 16, 2026, Best and Blackburn called two witnesses — Blackburn himself and Moynahan. Best did not testify at trial.At the close of Plaintiffs' proof, Defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 4401 for a directed verdict, contending that Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that the accident occurred because of Defendants' negligence. In particular, Defendants argued that negligence was not established from Plaintiffs' presentation of evidence, as the testimony revealed that Blackburn did not see the accident occur, and Moynahan stated that he never drove into the bike lane and did not strike Best.

After Defendants moved for a directed verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401, Best was asked if she would like to respond to this motion. She offered no opposition. Blackburn did oppose Defendants' motion, maintaining that this case should proceed to the jury and the jury should determine the weight of the testimony presented in order to make the final determination of the case.

Discussion

According to CPLR 4401,

Any party may move for judgment with respect to a cause of action or issue upon the ground that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, after the close of the evidence presented by an opposing party with respect to such cause of action or issue, or at any time on the basis of admissions.

It is well settled that a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401 should be granted, "where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party" (Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; cf. Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). Thus, when a court considers a motion for a directed verdict, it must not engage in weighing the evidence, nor grant a directed verdict when facts are in dispute, the credibility of a witness is in question, or where different inferences could be concluded (see Bzezi v Eldib, 112 AD3d 772, 774 [2d Dept 2013], quoting Dolitsky v Bay Isle Oil Co., 111 AD2d 366 [2d Dept 1985]).

The Court's function on such motion as a matter of law is to determine if the nonmoving party has established a prima facie case based upon any rational view of the evidence presented (see Szczerbiak, 90 NY2d 553 at 556). "If there exists any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead rational jurors to the conclusion reached by the nonmoving party, judgment as a matter of law must be denied" (Rawlins v Myint, Misc 3d , 2026 NY Slip Op 26108 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2026]); see Cohen, 45 NY2d 493 at 499). Thus, if the evidence presented at trial did not establish a rational process by which the jury could base a finding, a motion for a directed verdict can be granted (see Creutzberger v County of Suffolk, 180 AD3d 991, 993 [2d Dept 2020]).

"The sufficiency of evidence 'reasonably to satisfy a jury' cannot be mechanically measured. It is 'incredible as matter of law' only where no reasonable man could accept it and base an inference upon it. That depends upon considerations which vary in accordance with the circumstances of the particular case." (Blum v Fresh Grown Preserve Corp, 292 NY 241, 246 [1944].) The courts consider that "insufficient evidence is, in the eye of the law, no evidence" (Matter of Case, 214 NY 199, 203 [1915] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Therefore, when there is no evidence for the jury, it does not mean there is literally no evidence, but rather not enough to reasonably satisfy a jury (see Blum, 292 NY at 245, quoting Matter of Case, 214 NY 199).

In the case at bar, the sufficiency of evidence presented during trial was not enough to reasonably afford the jury an opportunity to base a finding that Moynahan was negligent in his operation and use of his tractor trailer. During Plaintiffs' case, Blackburn and Moynahan were called to testify. Best did not call herself to testify as a witness, nor did Blackburn call Best to testify.

During Blackburn's testimony, he conceded that he did not witness the alleged incident occur, and by the time he turned around on his bike, the accident had already taken place. Blackburn did testify that while bicycling he saw one tire of Moynahan's tractor trailer encroach into the bike lane. However, that does not establish that Best was injured as a result.

During testimony, Moynahan stated that out of his passenger side window he saw Best in the air after she hit a curb. He further stated that he was traveling northbound on Kent Avenue at the time of the incident. Moynahan never testified that he directly struck Best with his vehicle.

Thus, the evidence presented by the self-represented Plaintiffs was sorely insufficient for a jury to determine if Moynahan negligently operated his tractor trailer and proximately caused an accident. Although Blackburn contended that Best sustained injuries due to Moynahan allegedly striking Best with his tractor trailer, Best did not testify and Moynahan's testimony denied striking Best. Neither Blackburn nor Moynahan testified that Best was hit by Moynahan. At worst for Moynahan, the testimony given by Blackburn shows that Blackburn saw a tire in the bike lane; however, this does not establish negligence on behalf of Moynahan proximately causing the accident to occur.

Furthermore, Best conceded that she had no recollection of the accident. Although this was stated to the Court without the jury present, she did not present her testimony during trial to allow the jury to determine what occurred on August 12, 2019.

The Court found, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, and affording Plaintiffs every favorable inference, that reasonable jurors could not conclude that Moynahan negligently operated his tractor trailer. The Court noted that there had been no evidence presented that Plaintiff Best was involved in an accident which Moynahan proximately caused. The burden was on Plaintiffs to establish that the driver was at fault and breached his duty of care that was owed to Plaintiff Best. Plaintiffs further had to show that this breach of the duty of care was a substantial factor in bringing the claimed accident. The Court noted that Moynahan testified that he was progressing northbound on Kent Avenue. This testimony on cross examination was taken into consideration. However, especially since Plaintiff Best herself did not testify, no reasonable jury could conclude that Moynahan was negligent in operating his vehicle. The mere fact that, according to Blackburn, at some point Moynahan's tire was in the bike line, cannot lead one to infer that Best went up into the air as a result. That would be speculation. It is equally plausible that Best drove her bike into a sidewalk, causing her to pop upward and then down, or otherwise mismanaged her bicycle. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for a directed verdict, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court determined that it was proper and in conformity with law to grant Defendants' motion for a directed verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401 and dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Aaron D. Maslow, J.* FN* This Court acknowledges the assistance of Mackenzie Callahan, judicial intern and third year student at New York Law School, in the preparation of this decision.