Majority
—Amended order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Following a trial, the jury found that plaintiff had sustained a serious injury and that defendant was negligent, but found that defendant’s negligence was not “a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs injury.” Plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as inherently inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence. Supreme Court granted the motion and directed a new trial on damages only. We conclude that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence with respect to the issue of proximate cause and thus was properly set aside to that extent. The testimony of plaintiffs treating physicians established that the accident was at least a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injury. The preponderance of the evidence on the issue of proximate cause was so great that the verdict finding that defendant was negligent but that his negligence did not proximately cause plaintiffs injuries could not have been
Cases cited
- Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc. 86 NY2d 744 at 746 p. 885
- Rogers v. DiChristina 195 AD2d 1061 at 1062 p. 885
- Nicastro v. Park 113 AD2d 129 at 133 p. 885
- Browne v. Pikula 256 AD2d 1139 p. 885
- Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. 45 NY2d 493 at 498 p. 885