AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Lamar HARDWICK, et al., Claimants–Appellants, v. The STATE of New York, Defendant–Respondent.

GONZALEZ

Andrew H. Rosenbaum, New York, for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Paul Groenwegen of counsel), for respondent.

GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS, SWEENY, ROMÁN, JJ.

Judgment of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (W. Brooks DeBow, J.), entered January 6, 2010, after a nonjury trial, upon a finding that the injured claimant was 75% at fault and defendant 25% at fault, unanimously modified, on the facts, to apportion liability 60% to claimant and 40% to defendant, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Since the trial court's apportionment of liability was based on a credibility determination, our review is limited to whether the court arrived at its conclusion by means of a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809 [1983]; Green v. William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 74 A.D.3d 570, 571–73, 902 N.Y.S.2d 542 [2010] [Saxe, J., concurring]; see also Watts v. State of New York, 25 A.D.3d 324, 809 N.Y.S.2d 5 [2006] ). The record supports the finding that claimant bears some responsibility for his injuries. However, it does not support the finding that the dangerous condition was open and obvious. Thus, we modify the apportionment accordingly.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Hardwick v. State
(Dec 20, 2011)