Contona v. Godas
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability—duty of abutting property owners to maintain sidewalks and correct defective conditions.
After a liability-only trial, the jury found the sidewalk was unsafe and that defendants had notice, but found defendants were not negligent; the court denied plaintiff’s motion under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 4404(a) [authorizes the court to set aside a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and order a new trial].
The judgment dismissing the complaint and the denial of plaintiff’s CPLR 4404(a) motion were reversed; the complaint was reinstated and a new trial on liability was ordered.
The jury’s findings were irreconcilably inconsistent: having found an unsafe sidewalk condition and that defendants had sufficient notice to correct it, a no-negligence finding was not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.
Background
Plaintiff alleged injuries from a trip-and-fall on an uneven sidewalk abutting defendants’ premises in Nassau County. Evidence included photos showing the condition existed since at least 2007 near longstanding businesses with significant foot traffic. Defendants testified they were unaware of the defect but acknowledged their obligation under Town of Oyster Bay Town Code § 205-2 [obligates abutting property owners to maintain sidewalks in a safe condition and make necessary repairs if defects are present] and stated they would have repaired or warned (e.g., with a cone) if notified. The trial proceeded on liability only.
Lower Court Decision
The jury found: (1) the sidewalk was unsafe; (2) defendants knew or should have known of the condition before the fall; but (3) defendants were not negligent in failing to correct or warn. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied plaintiff’s oral CPLR 4404(a) motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and entered judgment for defendants, effectively dismissing the complaint.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs. The Appellate Division held the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence because the findings were irreconcilably inconsistent. The court granted plaintiff’s CPLR 4404(a) motion, reinstated the complaint, and remitted for a new trial on liability.
Legal Significance
Confirms that a verdict is set aside as against the weight of the evidence when jury findings are internally inconsistent, particularly where findings of an unsafe condition and notice are paired with a no-negligence conclusion. Reinforces the duty of abutting property owners to maintain sidewalks in safe condition and the use of CPLR 4404(a) to correct unjust verdicts.
A jury’s finding of an unsafe sidewalk and defendants’ notice cannot be reconciled with a finding of no negligence on these facts; such a verdict will be set aside under CPLR 4404(a) and a new trial ordered.