Opinion
11-21-2017
Helen TORRES, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Nicola DIAZ, Defendant–Respondent, Moustapha Diaby, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Bethpage (Keri A. Wehrheim of counsel), for appellants. Cascione, Purcigliotti & Galluzzi, P.C., New York (Thomas G. Cascione of counsel), for Helen Torres, respondent. Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, for Nicola Diaz, respondent.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Bethpage (Keri A. Wehrheim of counsel), for appellants.
Cascione, Purcigliotti & Galluzzi, P.C., New York (Thomas G. Cascione of counsel), for Helen Torres, respondent.
Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, for Nicola Diaz, respondent.
ACOSTA, P.J., TOM, WEBBER, GESMER, SINGH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson Jr., J.), entered on or about April 10, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Moustache Dhaby's motion to set aside the directed verdict against him and reinstate the jury's verdict, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant Moustapha Dhaby.
The jury's findings that defendant was not negligent, and that his actions were not a substantial factor in causing the subject automobile accident, were not against the weight of the evidence. The jurors could have reasonably found that defendant had a green traffic light in his favor when he drove through the intersection of Manhattan Avenue and West 116th Street, and that codefendant Nicola Diaz failed to stop at the intersection's red traffic signal, causing the accident (see Cooper v. Apple
Radio Car Serv., 261 A.D.2d 500, 690 N.Y.S.2d 598 [2d Dept.1999] ). As the verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163 [1995] ), and there being no grounds to disturb the jury's credibility determinations (see Phillips v. Katzman, 90 A.D.3d 436, 933 N.Y.S.2d 859 [1st Dept.2011] ), there was no basis for granting a directed verdict.