Greene v. Frontier Central Dist. School Dist.

• Decision Date: 28 April 1995
• Docket Number: No. 1,1
• Citation: 214 A.D.2d 947,627 N.Y.S.2d 491
• Parties: Corrie L. GREENE, Respondent, v. FRONTIER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and Michele Ribarich, Appellants. Appeal
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 491

627 N.Y.S.2d 491

214 A.D.2d 947

Corrie L. GREENE, Respondent, v. FRONTIER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and Michele Ribarich,

Appellants. Appeal No. 1.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

April 28, 1995.

Hurwitz and Fine, P.C. by Amy Ziegler, Buffalo, for appellants.

Miserendino, Krull & Foley by Walter Sergert, Buffalo, for respondent.

Before DENMAN, P.J., and LAWTON, WESLEY, DOERR and BOEHM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendants appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiff $252,013 plus interest, costs, and disbursements based upon a jury verdict finding defendants liable for a "serious injury" sustained by plaintiff in a bus accident. Defendants' primary contention is that plaintiff failed to establish that she suffered a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" and thus Supreme Court should have set aside the jury verdict on that ground. Defendants also contend that the court improperly denied their request for a collateral source hearing; that the verdict was the product of juror misconduct and improper outside influences; and that the court's instructions were improper.

We conclude that the jury's finding of serious injury is supported by sufficient evidence. Although the court has a threshold obligation to decide in the first instance whether plaintiff has a cause of action within the meaning of the No-Fault Law (see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088), where the parties proffer conflicting medical evidence, the existence of a serious injury is a matter for the jury's determination (see, Perez v. Rousseau, 190 A.D.2d 1040, 1040-1041, 594 N.Y.S.2d 477; Kupfer v. Dalton, 169 A.D.2d 819, 565 N.Y.S.2d 188). A verdict should not be set aside unless the evidence so preponderates in favor of the moving party that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence or unless the verdict is not one that reasonable persons could have rendered after receiving conflicting evidence (see, Perez v. Rousseau, supra, at 1040-1041, 594 N.Y.S.2d 477; see generally, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 498-499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145). On a motion to set aside the jury verdict, or on appeal from denial of such motion, the court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing at trial (see, Perez v. Rousseau, supra ).

Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that it is sufficient to support the jury's finding that she suffered a significant limitation, i.e., a debilitating herniation of her C5 to C6 disc, as a result of the accident. Three physicians testified for plaintiff that a CT scan and MRI revealed that plaintiff had a ruptured disc, thus verifying her complaints of extreme pain and limitation of movement....