From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sarosy v. Scheina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 28, 1996
225 A.D.2d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 28, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerald D'Emilio, J.).


A reasonable view of the evidence supports the jury's findings that, although defendant operated his vehicle negligently, the sole proximate cause of the accident was plaintiff's failure to drive with her car lights on as she approached the intersection; such findings are not inconsistent ( see, Gross v Napoli, 216 A.D.2d 524). There is no merit to plaintiffs' claim that the court's instruction that each party was under a duty "to have the automobile under reasonable control and to keep a proper lookout under the circumstances then existing, to see and be aware of what was in their view and to use reasonable care to avoid an accident" did not adequately convey the principle set forth in PJI 2:77 that drivers are negligent if they fail to see that which they should have seen.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Sarosy v. Scheina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 28, 1996
225 A.D.2d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Sarosy v. Scheina

Case Details

Full title:VICTORIA A. SAROSY et al., Appellants, v. DAVID SCHEINA, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 28, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 493 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 817

Citing Cases

Taveras v. K&D Equip. Leasing Corp.

Plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning where his vehicle impacted defendants'…

Schmidt v. Buffalo General Hospital

We disagree. Defendants asked the court to include in its charge language from Kambat v. St. Francis Hosp. (…