Salamone v. Ginsberg's Institutional Foods, Inc.

2023 NY Slip Op 02571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023) · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department · May 11, 2023 · No. 535301

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed an order denying the plaintiff's motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendants in a negligence action arising from a tractor-trailer collision. The court held that conflicting evidence regarding the defendant's lane movement and signaling presented factual issues for the jury and did not establish negligence per se under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a) as a matter of law. The court also concluded that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and declined to impose costs and fees under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department
Writing for the Court
Aarons, J.; Clark, J.P.; Pritzker, J.; Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.; McShan, J.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
May 11, 2023
Docket number
535301
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed from an order denying his CPLR 4404 motion to set aside a jury verdict finding that defendant Antonio Martins was not negligent.
Standard of review
A jury verdict will not be disturbed as against the weight of the evidence when it is supported by a fair interpretation of conflicting evidence; substantial deference is given to the jury's assessment of the evidence.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Eric F. Salamone v. Ginsberg's Institutional Foods, Inc., Antonio Martins
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

negligencepersonal injurystandard of reviewappellate procedurecosts

Practice areas

tortsnegligencecivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence established as a matter of law that Martins violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) and was negligent per se.
  2. Whether the jury's verdict finding Martins not negligent was against the weight of the evidence.
  3. Whether costs and fees should be imposed against Salamone under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Holdings

  1. Martins was not negligent per se as a matter of law because the conflicting trial evidence raised a factual question for the jury as to whether any noncompliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) was excusable.
  2. The jury's verdict finding Martins not negligent was not against the weight of the evidence and would not be disturbed.
  3. Costs and fees against Salamone under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 were not warranted.

Key quotations

A driver is negligent per se when he or she commits an unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (*1)
great deference is given to the jury's interpretation of the evidence (*2)

Factual background

Salamone's vehicle collided with the right side of a tractor-trailer driven by Antonio Martins while Martins was making a wide right turn into a parking lot. Martins testified that he activated his right turn signal, moved into the left lane, slowed, checked his mirrors, and proceeded only after seeing no vehicles alongside the tractor-trailer. Salamone relied on contrary evidence that Martins did not check his mirrors and that the tractor-trailer was entirely in the left lane with its left turn signal engaged.

Procedural history

Salamone commenced a negligence action for personal injuries arising from a collision between his vehicle and a tractor-trailer driven by Martins, an employee of Ginsberg's Institutional Foods, Inc. After a jury trial, the jury found Martins was not negligent. Supreme Court, Ulster County, denied Salamone's motion to set aside the verdict, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…