Majority
The jury’s verdict, which found that defendant driver was negligent in the operation of his vehicle but that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries, is not inconsistent and illogical. The issue of whether a defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of an accident is separate and distinct from the negligence determination (Ohdan v City of New York, 268 AD2d 86 , 89, Iv denied 95 NY2d 769 ). A defendant may act negligently without that negligence constituting a proximate cause of the accident (id.).
The jury heard evidence that a traffic control agent waved defendant through an intersection despite a steady red light,
As plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 , 134), the verdict will not be disturbed.
Nor was plaintiff entitled to a missing witness charge with respect to the traffic enforcement agents who were working at the scene absent a showing that the agents were under defendants’ control (see Chandler v Flynn, 111 AD2d 300 , 301, appeal dismissed 67 NY2d 647 ). We also note that plaintiff had successfully precluded the agents’ testimony. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.
Cases cited
- Ohdan v. City of New York 268 AD2d 86 at 89 p. 534
- Nicastro v. Park 113 AD2d 129 at 134 p. 535
- Chandler v. Flynn 111 AD2d 300 at 301 p. 535