Court Opinion

ID: 9930458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:07:52.728103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:29.538537
License: Public Domain

Perillo v Marinelli
               2024 NY Slip Op 30360(U)
                    February 2, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 151319/2015
                 Judge: David B. Cohen
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2024 04:32 PM                                               INDEX NO. 151319/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

                             SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                       NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:        HON. DAVID B. COHEN                              PART   58
                                                                 Justice
            --------------------,X                                           INDEX NO.          151319/2015
             MARY PERILLO,
                                                                             MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                              Plaintiff,

                                        -v-
             ANTHONY MARINELLI, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
             AUTHORITY, MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE                            DECISION + ORDER ON
             TRANSPORTION OPERATING AUTHORITY, MTA BUS                               MOTION
             COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
             AUTHORITY,

                                              Defendants.

            ------------------X
            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
            56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75
            were read on this motion to/for                                SET ASIDE VERDICT

                   In this personal injury action, plaintiff moves pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the

           jury verdict as a matter of law on the issue of causation and direct judgment in her favor or,

           alternatively, set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of evidence on the issue of

           causation and grant a new trial.

                                                   I.       BACKGROUND

                   This matter arises from an accident that occurred on July 18, 2014, between plaintiff who

           was riding a Citi Bike, and a New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) bus operated by Anthony

           Marinelli (defendant). The Court presided over the jury trial commencing on July 5, 2023, and

           concluding with a jury verdict on July 12, 2023. The jury found that defendant was negligent but

           that his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injuries. The jury never

           reached the question of plaintiffs negligence.

            151319/2015 PERILLO, MARY vs. MARINELLI, ANTHONY                                     Page 1 of6
            Motion No. 001

[* 1]                                                       1 of 6
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2024 04:32 PM                                                INDEX NO. 151319/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

                   At trial the jury heard testimony from defendant, two bystanders, plaintiff, and plaintiff's

            doctor. Neither defendant nor plaintiff saw the accident. Defendant testified that he had not seen

            plaintiff prior to the accident and his first indication that an accident had occurred was when he

            looked in his mirror and saw people pointing at the side of his bus (NYSCEF 56 at 213, 224).

           ·Plaintiff testified that she was struck from behind and at the time did not know what hit her but

            saw people pointing in the direction of "a bus coming to a stop" (NYSCEF 57 at 402, 445).

            Deposition testimony from the first bystander witness was read to the jury. The witness, a

            doorman, testified that at the time of the accident defendant's bus was stationery. He further

           testified that five seconds before seeing plaintiff on the ground he saw her riding her bike while

           not looking forward (NYSCEF 56 at 265, 292-293). The second bystander witness, a NYCTA bus

            operator, testified that he saw plaintiff ride her bike into the right side of the stationery bus

            (NYSCEF 57 at 382, 390). Plaintiff's doctor testified that the accident was a competent producing

            cause of plaintiff's injuries (NYSCEF 58 at 475).

                   The Court charged the jury with New York Pattern Jury Instruction (NY PJI) 2:70 for

            proximate cause and 2:77 stating a "driver is charged with a duty _to see that which, under existing

            circumstances, he should have seen by the proper use of his senses. If you find that defendant

            [Anthony Marinelli] did not observe that which was there to be seen, you may find that he was

           negligent in failing to look or not looking carefully" (NYSCEF 58, 60).

                            II.     PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT

           A.      Am,licable Law

                   CPLR 4404 (a) provides that "the court may set aside a verdict or any judgment entered

           thereon and direct that judgment be entered in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of

             151319/2015 PERILLO, MARY vs. MARINELLI, ANTHONY                                     Page2of6
             Motion No. 001

[* 2]                                                      2 of 6
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2024 04:32 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 151319/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

           law or it may order a new trial of a cause of action or separable issue where the verdict is contrary

           to the weight of evidence, [or] in the interest of justice."

                   To hold that a jury verdict is insufficient as a matter oflaw, plaintiff must establish that the

           jury's verdict was "utterly irrational" (Ki/Ion v Parrotta, 28 NY3d 101, 108 [2016],

           quoting Campbell v City of Elmira, 84 NY2d 505, 510 [1994]). "To conclude that a verdict is

           utterly irrational, requiring vacatur of the verdict, the Court must determine that 'there is simply

           no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead [a] rational

            [person] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial'"

           (id, quoting Campbell v City of Elmira, 84 NY2d at 509).

                   To hold that a jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence and requires a new trial,

           plaintiff must establish that "the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [moving party] that

           [it] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence" (id at 108, quoting

           Lolik v Big Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]). In this analysis, a jury's resolution of

           conflicting evidence and credibility determinations are entitled to deference (see Brunson v Saint

            Vincent's Catholic Med. Ctrs. ofN. Y., 146 AD3d 698, 699 [1st Dept 2017]).

                   On a motion for a new trial in the interest of justice, the question· for resolution is "whether

           substantial justice has been done or whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected"

           (Califano v City ofNew York, 212 AD2d 146, 153 [1st Dept 1995] [internal quotation and citation

           omitted]).

           B.   Causation/Proximate Cause

                   Plaintiff moves to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of causation as a matter of law or,

           alternatively, as against the weight of the evidence arguing that ''the jury could not have reached

           its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence ... because the factual scenarios presented to

             151319/2015 PERILLO, MARY vs. MARINELLI, ANTHONY                                       Page 3 of6
             Motion No. 001

[* 3]                                                      3 of 6
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2024 04:32 PM                                                INDEX NO. 151319/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

           the jury by the plaintiff and defendant were so divergent the question of causation [is] . . .

           inextricably interwoven with the question of negligence" (NYSCEF 53 at 2). Defendant opposes

           asserting that there were several reasonable alternative interpretations of the evidence that support

           the verdict which found that though defendant was negligent, his negligence was not a substantial

           factor in causing plaintiffs injuries.

                   Negligence alone is insufficient to establish liability absent proof that the negligence was

           a proximate cause of injury, which is generally a question of fact for the jury (see Lebron v NY

           City Haus. Auth., 158 AD3d 503, 505 [1st Dept 2018]). There are certain instances where the

           issues of negligence and proximate cause are inextricably interwoven, as to make a split verdict

           on the two issues a logical impossibility, and in these matters the verdict must be set aside (see

           Fisk v City of NY, 74 AD3d 658, 659-660 [1st Dept 2010]). However, where the verdict can be

           reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the

           presumption that the jury adopted such view of the evidence (Watson v Jade Luxury Transp. Corp.,

            114 AD3d 495, 496 [1st Dept 2014] [internal quotations and citations omitted]).

                   Contrary to plaintiffs argument, negligence and proximate cause are not inextricably

           linked here, and it was not utterly irrational nor against the weight of evidence for the jury to

           conclude that plaintiff met her burden of proof that defendants negligently operated the bus but

           did not meet her burden of proof that defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiffs

           injuries. During trial only one witness was able to testify that they saw the accident occur, and he

           stated that plaintiff rode her bike into a stationery bus. Another witness also testified that at or

           around the time of the accident, the bus was stationery. The jury was then charged under NY PJI

           2:70 and 2:77. Based up the trial evidence, it was reasonable for the jury to have found that plaintiff

           established that defendants were negligent in that the bus driver did not see plaintiff prior to the

             151319/2015 PERILLO, MARV vs. MARINELLI, ANTHONY                                      Page4of6
             Motion No. 001

[* 4]                                                     4 of 6
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2024 04:32 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 151319/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

            collision, but that his negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident and plaintiffs

            injuries, as the plaintiff apparently rode her bicycle into the bus (see Rodriguez v New York City

            Tr. Auth., 67AD3d 511 [Pt Dept 2009] [reversing lower court's grant of plaintiffs CPLR 4404

            (a) motion and holding that the jury verdict finding defendant's negligence was not a substantial

            factor in causing plaintiffs injury was neither inconsistent nor against the weight of the evidence

            where plaintiff sustained injuries after defendant backed bus into plaintiffs vehicle]). Defendant

            is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted this view (Watson, 114 AD3d at 496).

                        In support of their argument plaintiff points to Melia v. Jagmohan, 2018 NYLJ LEXIS

            2753 (Sup Ct, Queens County 2018, Latin R.) however the record in that matter consisted of

            testimony that the plaintiff was in a crosswalk when hit by a truck, the driver drove the truck into

            the crosswalk, had a blind spot, and heard a noise that sounded like a bicycle was struck.

            Additionally, plaintiff fails to provide any legal support for the proposition that where "factual

            scenarios presented to the jury by the plaintiff and defendant were so divergent the question of

            causation [is] ... inextricably interwoven with the question of negligence".

            C.    Cross Examination of Plaintiffs Doctor

                        Plaintiff argues that defendant's questioning related to medication in the plaintiffs current

            medical chart may have improperly influenced the jury, in that it insinuated she may have been a

            drug user. However, her contention is unavailing because she failed to object to such questioning

            at trial.

                        The parties remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed given

            the findings set forth above.

             151319/2015 PERILLO, MARY vs. MARINELLI, ANTHONY                                          Page 5 of 6
             Motion No. 001

[* 5]                                                          5 of 6
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2024 04:32 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 151319/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

                                                   III.   CONCLUSION

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion is denied.

                     2/2/2024
                      DATE

                                                                        ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                      NoJ~~PQlf'b)/1          D B. COHEN
                                         GRANTED          0    DENIED       GRANTED 1~ PART          D oTHeJ.S.C.
            APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT     □ REFERENCE

            151319/2015 PERILLO, MARY vs. MARINELLI, ANTHONY                                           Page 6 of 6
            Motion No. 001

[* 6]                                                     6 of 6