Colon v. City of New York

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: COPERTINO
• Citation: Colon v. City of New York, 666 N.Y.S.2d 10, 245 A.D.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
• Decision Date: 01 December 1997
• Parties: 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,308 Angel COLON, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents.

Page 10

666 N.Y.S.2d 10

1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,308

Angel COLON, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Dec. 1, 1997.

Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, New York City (Steven Thaler, of counsel), for appellant.

Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York City (Kristin M. Helmers and Alan G. Krams, of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered August 9, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Although the trial court frequently intervened in the trial by questioning witnesses, it did not display any bias toward either counsel. Rather, the trial court questioned the witnesses to further clarify facts material to the issues in the trial and to expedite the proceedings (see, Pallotta v. West Bend Co., 166 A.D.2d 637, 639, 561 N.Y.S.2d 66; LaMotta v. City of New York, 130 A.D.2d 627, 515 N.Y.S.2d 554; Gallo v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 112 A.D.2d 345, 348, 491 N.Y.S.2d 796).

The plaintiff's challenges to the court's supplemental charge on proximate cause are unpreserved for appellate review (see, Scandell v. Salerno, 155 A.D.2d 523, 547 N.Y.S.2d 581; deGast v. Livingston, 144 A.D.2d 332, 333, 533 N.Y.S.2d 779; Waddle v. E.G. Snyder Co., 149 A.D.2d 696, 697, 540 N.Y.S.2d 489). In any event, the charge as a whole sufficiently instructed the jury as to the law (see, Scandell v. Salerno, supra; Fricker v. New York City Off Track Betting Corp., 213 A.D.2d 590, 591, 624 N.Y.S.2d 928, cert. denied 516 U.S. 1114, 116 S.Ct. 914, 133 L.Ed.2d 845; Dulin v. Maher, 200 A.D.2d 707, 708, 607 N.Y.S.2d 67).

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the fact that the defendants were found to have been negligent but that their negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries does not render the verdict inconsistent (see, Schermerhorn v. Warfield, 213 A.D.2d 877, 878, 623 N.Y.S.2d 422; Rubin v. Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d 525, 526, 529 N.Y.S.2d 142).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

COPERTINO, J.P., and SULLIVAN, PIZZUTO and LERNER, JJ., concur.