Majority
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Hard, J), entered December 15, 2005, upon a decision of the court in favor of claimants.
It is undisputed that in August 1999, claimant Christopher Beckwith (hereinafter claimant), who was then 15 years old, was operating a four-wheeled all-terrain vehicle (hereinafter ATV) on public roadways. This operation was inappropriate and
Claimant, and his parents derivatively, filed this personal injury action. After the liability phase of a bifurcated trial, the Court of Claims found that Conboy’s patrol car was driven in a dangerous fashion with reckless disregard for the safety of claimant and his passenger and that it struck claimant’s ATV prior to the crash. The court apportioned liability 90% to defendant and 10% to claimant. After a damages trial, the court entered judgment for claimant and his parents. Defendant appeals, limiting its arguments to the liability determination.
We affirm. “In independently reviewing the probative weight of the evidence and inferences to be drawn from it in this nonjury trial case, we accord deference to those findings of the Court of Claims which are based largely upon credibility determinations and concur in its factual findings” (Butler v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 307 AD2d 694 , 695 [2003] [citations omitted]; see Martin v State of New York, 39 AD3d 905 , 907 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 804 [2007]). As these factual and credibility findings are supported by a fair reading of the evidence, we see no reason to disturb the court’s determination to accept the testimony of claimant, his passenger and an impartial eyewitness over the inconsistent testimony of Conboy and the intern (compare Schieren v State of New York, 281 AD2d 828 , 830 [2001]). The court also explicitly outlined its basis for rejecting defendant’s expert report and testimony.
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Cases cited
- Butler v. New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority 307 AD2d 694 at 695 p. 829
- Martin v. State 39 AD3d 905 at 907 p. 829
- Schieren v. State 281 AD2d 828 at 830 p. 829
- Wilson v. Vestal Central School District 34 AD3d 999 at 1000 p. 830
- Humphrey v. State 90 AD2d 901 at 902 p. 830
- Humphrey v. State 60 NY2d 742 at 744 p. 830
- Ernest v. Red Creek Central School District 93 NY2d 664 at 675 p. 830