Schermerhorn v. Warfield

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtBefore MIKOLL; MIKOLL
CitationSchermerhorn v. Warfield, 623 N.Y.S.2d 422, 213 A.D.2d 877 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Decision Date16 March 1995
PartiesCorey A. SCHERMERHORN, Appellant, v. C. James WARFIELD, Also Known as James C. Warfield, et al., Respondents.

Finkelstein, Levine, Gittelsohn & Tetenbaum (James W. Shuttleworth III, of counsel), Newburgh, for appellant.

Cook, Tucker, Netter & Cloonan P.C. (Thomas A. Murphy, of counsel), Kingston, for respondents.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, WHITE, YESAWICH and SPAIN, JJ.

MIKOLL, Justice Presiding.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered November 15, 1993 in Columbia County, upon a verdict rendered in favor of defendants.

On December 17, 1988 plaintiff attended a wedding reception from 2:00 P.M. through 5:30 P.M. except for a period of about 15 minutes when he went for a ride in a friend's new car. Plaintiff brought with him a bottle of 80-proof whiskey he estimated to contain a cup of whiskey. He consumed the full bottle with ginger ale, had one or two screw drivers made with vodka and also ate some food at the reception. Upon leaving the reception, plaintiff walked home, remained there for a while before walking his dog, a pit bull terrier, to his girlfriend Kathy Kassman's apartment. Plaintiff and Kassman then both left her apartment between 6:30 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. to walk his dog and another bull terrier belonging to mutual friends living downstairs from Kassman. After walking about 35 to 40 minutes, they saw some ice on the sidewalk ahead of them. As they approached the icy area, Kassman was walking with one dog on a leash to the right of plaintiff who was walking beside her. They noticed the ice was larger on the left or street side of the sidewalk and thinned out and was smaller on the right side of the walk. Kassman stepped over the ice without difficulty but plaintiff stepped on it and fell, injuring his ankle. Kassman did not see him fall but turned and saw him on the ground. The next day she went back to the scene, 118 Greet Street in the City of Hudson, Columbia County, in front of a funeral home operated by defendant Bates and Anderson Funeral Services Inc. and took several photographs of the icy sidewalk area which were admitted in evidence.

Plaintiff was wearing sunglasses described as tinted prescription glasses at the time of the accident, an overcoat, cowboy boots/western style with smooth soles and 1 1/2-inch heels. The dog plaintiff was walking at the time weighed 83 pounds according to Kassman while the one she walked weighed about 50 pounds. There was no testimony that defendants created the icy condition. There was testimony that the slab of concrete was lower in the area where the ice was widest and thickest. Testimony was offered describing the weather conditions on the day of the accident and on several prior days.

Plaintiff admitted on cross-examination that Kassman had stepped over the ice without mishap and that he could have easily stepped over the ice on the right side of the sidewalk as Kassman had done.

Supreme Court submitted several questions to the jury in writing and instructed them on how to proceed in answering them during deliberations. They were to answer the first two...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • Krosky v. County of Schenectady
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 19, 1997
    ...that these intentional and somewhat extraordinary acts were the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's fall (see, Schermerhorn v. Warfield, 213 A.D.2d 877, 878, 623 N.Y.S.2d 422; Stilloe v. Contini, 213 A.D.2d 815, 818, 623 N.Y.S.2d 402; Rubin v. Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d 525, 526-527, 529 N.Y.S.2d......
  • Rosas v. Ishack
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 18, 1995
    ...Therefore, the court erred in determining that the verdict was inconsistent as a matter of law (see, e.g., Schermerhorn v. Warfield, 213 A.D.2d 877, 623 N.Y.S.2d 422; Brooks v. Adams, 204 A.D.2d 938, 612 N.Y.S.2d However, upon our examination of the trial court's charge regarding Labor Law ......
  • St. Lawrence County Deputy Sheriffs, Local 2390, Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO on Behalf of Bonno (County of St. Lawrence), Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 16, 1995
  • Kim v. Cippola
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 27, 1996
    ...was not a substantial cause of the accident (see, Trotter v. Johnson, 210 A.D.2d 946, 621 N.Y.S.2d 761; cf., Schermerhorn v. Warfield, 213 A.D.2d 877, 878, 623 N.Y.S.2d 422). Because the verdict sheet "demonstrate[s] substantial confusion by the jury" in reaching its verdict (Trotter v. Joh......
  • Get Started for Free