Rios v. New York City Tr. Auth.
Docket 2023-08528
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02429
- Docket
- 2023-08528
Appeal from a judgment following a jury verdict in a personal-injury action, and from denial of a CPLR 4404(a) motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County judgment dismissing Rios's personal-injury complaint after a jury found the bus driver’s negligence was not a substantial factor in the crash and that the other vehicle’s driver was solely at fault. The plaintiff had moved to set aside the liability verdict as against the weight of the evidence, but the court denied that motion. The court also found any claimed errors in admitting certain defense expert testimony to be harmless because the outcome would not have changed.
Issues Decided
- Whether the jury's verdict finding the bus driver's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident was against the weight of the evidence.
- Whether any error in admission of certain defendants' expert testimony required a new trial or reversal.
Court's Reasoning
The court concluded the jury's finding that the other vehicle's driver was the sole proximate cause was supported by the evidence and therefore not against the weight of the evidence. Even if some expert testimony was improperly admitted, the error was harmless because the appellate court was satisfied the verdict would have been the same absent the alleged errors.
Authorities Cited
- CPLR 4404(a)
- CPLR 2002
- Ramrattan v Resorts World Casino221 AD3d 629
Parties
- Appellant
- Luis Rios
- Defendant
- Loraine Lord
- Defendant
- New York City Transit Authority
- Defendant
- Metropolitan Transportation Authority
- Defendant
- MTA Bus Company
- Judge
- Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, J.P.
- Judge
- William G. Ford, J.
- Judge
- Lillian Wan, J.
- Judge
- Laurence L. Love, J.
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-22
- Judgment date
- 2023-07-13
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider petition for leave to appeal
If the appellant wishes to continue, they may consult counsel about seeking leave to the New York Court of Appeals within applicable deadlines.
- 2
Review trial record for reversible error
Counsel for the appellant should review the trial transcript and the Appellate Division opinion to determine whether any preserved errors might warrant further appellate review.
- 3
Implement judgment obligations
If the defendants seek costs or other enforcement, parties should confirm and comply with any post-judgment filings or obligations in the trial court.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the lower-court judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint because the jury found the other vehicle's driver was solely at fault and that finding was supported by the evidence.
- Who is affected by the decision?
- The plaintiff (Luis Rios) remains without recovery; the bus driver and the transit authorities named as defendants prevail and are no longer liable based on this liability determination.
- Does this decision address expert testimony errors?
- Yes. The court said any error in admitting certain defense expert testimony was harmless because it would not have changed the outcome.
- Can this be appealed further?
- Possibly. A party could seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but this decision affirms the Appellate Division's ruling and does not itself state whether leave was sought or granted.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Rios v New York City Tr. Auth. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02429 Rios v New York City Tr. Auth. 2026 NY Slip Op 02429 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Luis Rios, appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, et al., respondents (and a third-party action). Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2023-08528, (Index No. 514675/16) Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, J.P. William G. Ford Lillian Wan Laurence L. Love, JJ. William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (Travis K. Wong of counsel), for appellant. Anna J. Ervolina, Brooklyn, NY (Theresa A. Frame of counsel), for respondents. DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gina Abadi, J.), dated July 13, 2023. The judgment, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, in effect, dismissing the complaint. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff allegedly was injured as a passenger in a vehicle driven by Christoffe Cintron (hereinafter the Cintron vehicle), when it collided with a public bus operated by the defendant Loraine Lord. The plaintiff commenced this action against Lord and the defendants New York City Transit Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and MTA Bus Company. Two other passengers in the Cintron vehicle commenced separate personal injury actions that were joined with this action for the purposes of a trial on the issue of liability ( see Garcia v New York City Tr. Auth. , ___ AD3d ___ [decided herewith]; Cruz v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. , ___ AD3d ___ [decided herewith]). Following the trial on the issue of liability, the jury returned a verdict finding that Lord's negligence in operating the bus was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, that Christoffe Cintron was negligent in operating the Cintron vehicle, and, in effect, that his negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside, as against the weight of the evidence, so much of the jury's verdict as found that Lord's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. The Supreme Court, among other things, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion. The court issued a judgment dated July 13, 2023, in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, in effect, dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals. For the reasons set forth in our decision and order on a related appeal ( see Garcia v New York City Tr. Auth. , ___ AD3d ___ [decided herewith]), the jury's verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Any error in the admission of certain expert testimony proffered by the defendants is harmless, as we are satisfied that the result would have been the same if the alleged errors had not occurred ( see CPLR 2002; Ramrattan v Resorts World Casino , 221 AD3d 629, 629; Simon v Granite Bldg. 2, LLC , 170 AD3d 1227, 1233). BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., FORD, WAN and LOVE, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph