From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hinkle v. Trejo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 29, 2011
89 A.D.3d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-29

Elizabeth HINKLE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Jonathan R. TREJO, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

The Breakstone Law Firm, P.C., Bellmore (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for appellant. Gottlieb Siegel & Schwartz, LLP, Bronx (Shane M. Biffar of counsel), for respondents.


The Breakstone Law Firm, P.C., Bellmore (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for appellant. Gottlieb Siegel & Schwartz, LLP, Bronx (Shane M. Biffar of counsel), for respondents.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, FRIEDMAN, CATTERSON, FREEDMAN, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered October 29, 2009, upon a jury verdict in defendants' favor in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff pedestrian was struck by defendants' motor vehicle, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury's finding that defendant driver was not negligent in striking plaintiff pedestrian 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 [2004] ). The jury clearly credited the driver's testimony that he had looked towards the curb immediately before the accident and had not seen anyone in his path, which determination is entitled to deference ( see Haiyan Lu v. Spinelli, 44 A.D.3d 546, 844 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2007] ). The jury could have inferred from the evidence that plaintiff, who was on her cell phone, suddenly stepped out onto the street, without giving the driver enough time to avoid the accident ( see e.g. Jordan v. Doyle, 24 A.D.3d 107, 805 N.Y.S.2d 51 [2005], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 705, 819 N.Y.S.2d 872, 853 N.E.2d 243 [2006] ).

The court properly included a charge as to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152(a) in light of the evidence that plaintiff may have been outside of the crosswalk at the time of the accident ( cf. Cavalli v. Cohen, 209 A.D.2d 240, 618 N.Y.S.2d 339 [1994] ). The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte striking improper hearsay testimony ( see e.g. Campbell v. Rogers & Wells, 218 A.D.2d 576, 579, 631 N.Y.S.2d 6 [1995] ).


Summaries of

Hinkle v. Trejo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 29, 2011
89 A.D.3d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Hinkle v. Trejo

Case Details

Full title:Elizabeth HINKLE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Jonathan R. TREJO, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 29, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
934 N.Y.S.2d 12
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8636

Citing Cases

Silver v. Victor

Here, it cannot be said that "the evidence so preponderated in favor of plaintiff that the jury's verdict…

Silver v. Victor

Here, it cannot be said that "the evidence so preponderated in favor of plaintiff that the jury's verdict…