Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 16 May 2013 |
| Citation | 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03556,106 A.D.3d 525,965 N.Y.S.2d 451 |
| Parties | Alida RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
106 A.D.3d 525
965 N.Y.S.2d 451
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03556
Alida RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 16, 2013.
[965 N.Y.S.2d 452]
The Rothenberg Law Firm LLP, New York (Louis A. Badolato of counsel), for appellant.
Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Richard J. Montes of counsel), for Ford Motor Company, respondent.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury (Andrea E. Ferrucci of counsel), for Betty F. Gerendasy, respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
[965 N.Y.S.2d 453]
[106 A.D.3d 525]Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered January 24, 2012 and February 9, 2012, after a trial, respectively dismissing the complaint against defendant Ford Motor Company and defendant Betty F. Gerendasy, as the administratrix of the Estate of Peter Nyiri, and individually, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered September 16, 2011, which denied plaintiff's motion to renew her motion for spoliation sanctions against Ford, with costs to Ford, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries she sustained when she was hit by a Ford vehicle owned by Betty F. Gerendasy and driven by Peter Nyiri. On a prior appeal, this Court reversed a grant of summary judgment to Ford, on the ground that plaintiff, who based her products liability claim against Ford on circumstantial evidence, had presented evidence that Nyiri was neither intoxicated nor negligent. We found that “Nyiri's deposition testimony that he had only had one glass of wine in an hour and a half and was not intoxicated, that the car accelerated when he put it in reverse without stepping on the gas, and that the steering wheel froze and the brakes did not work” could lead a jury to conclude that the vehicle did not perform as intended and that all other causes of the accident not attributable to Ford had been excluded (62 A.D.3d 573, 574, 879 N.Y.S.2d 129 [2009] ). At trial, plaintiff presented additional evidence, including the results of a blood alcohol content (BAC) test and the testimony of a toxicologist that Nyiri's BAC at the time of the accident was .08–.09, which the expert opined would have rendered him impaired, and that his claim to have consumed one glass of wine would not account [106 A.D.3d 526]for his BAC level. Given the new evidence, the “law of the case” doctrine did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delgado v. City of N.Y.
...determined (see Holmes v. Bronx–Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 128 A.D.3d 596, 11 N.Y.S.3d 114 [1st Dept.2015]; Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co., 106 A.D.3d 525, 525–526, 965 N.Y.S.2d 451 [1st Dept.2013]).Nothing in the cases cited by the majority requires or justifies holding that this Court's purported f......
-
Majid v. Cheon-Lee
...regard to only one theory of liability related to the failure to identify and isolate the ureter (compare Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co., 106 A.D.3d 525, 526, 965 N.Y.S.2d 451 [2013] ...
- Corprew v. City of N.Y.
-
Andrade v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't
...denominated as one for “reargument and reconsideration,” unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper. [965 N.Y.S.2d 451] The court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding under the doctrine of res judicata. Petitioner requested disclosure of d......
-
Evidence
...witness to use skulls as real evidence, not demonstrative evidence, to support expert’s opinion. NEW YORK Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co. , 106 A.D.3d 525, 526, 965 N.Y.S.2d 451, 453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013). The results of a blood alcohol test performed nearly one year after the test was performed......