Ruiz v Summit Appliance Div.
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 9, 2009
Supreme Court, Bronx County
Maria Ruiz, Petitioners,
against
The Summit Appliance Division, Felix Storch, Inc., Brown Stoveworks, Inc., and 3001 Valentine Realty, LLC, Respondents.
8847/05
BARTON, BARTON & PLOTKIN, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
420 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10170
(212) 687-6262
(212) 697-3043 (f)
RENDE, RYAN & DOWNES, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
BROWN STOVEWORKS, INC.
202 Mamaroneck Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 681-0444
(914) 681-0875 (f)
MARGARET G. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys for Defendant
3001 VALENTINE REALTY, LLC
200 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
(212) 683-9700
(212) 779-1499
Kenneth Thompson, J.
Plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR §§ 4404(a) & 5015 granting
her judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for an order setting aside the
verdict and granting a new trial, presents the unique question of whether a jury's finding that one
Defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff injuries—on two
separate verdict sheets—entitles Plaintiff to either a directed verdict on the issue of
substantial factor or a new trial. This Court finds that based on the facts of this matter, Plaintiff is
entitled to neither. Thus, her application is denied.
The Facts
This case
was on trial before this Court from November 12, 2008 to November 26, 2008. It involved
serious burn injuries sustained by Plaintiff MARIA RUIZ while she was a tenant in the building
of Defendant 3001 VALENTINE REALTY, LLC ("3001 VALENTINE") on June 11, 2008, due
to an allegedly negligently maintained stove in her apartment. Plaintiff further alleged that this
stove, manufactured by Defendant BROWN STOVEWORKS, INC., was not reasonably safe and
defectively designed. Plaintiff and both Defendants presented extensive expert testimony during
the course of the trial. On November 26, 2008, the jury returned two verdicts.
The first verdict contained the following findings: 1) Defendant 3001
VALENTINE was negligent; 2) Defendant 3001 VALENTINE'S negligence was not a
substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries; 3) Plaintiff was negligent; 4) Plaintiff's
negligence was a proximate cause of her own injuries; 5) Defendant 3001 VALENTINE was
38.3% [*2]at fault in causing Plaintiff's injuries; 6) Plaintiff was
61.7% at fault in causing her own injuries; 7) Plaintiff was entitled to $450,000 for her past pain
and suffering; 8) Plaintiff was entitled to $0 for her future pain and suffering; and 9) Plaintiff
was entitled to $0 for her future medical expenses. The jury further found in this first verdict that
Defendant BROWN STOVEWORKS, INC., did not defectively design the stove. The jury,
however, answered the substantial factor question, "NO" despite instructions to not answer that
question should they find no negligence as to that Defendant.
After receiving this verdict, the Court gave additional instructions to the jury
regarding the need to resolve the inconsistency between their finding that Defendant 3001
VALENTINE's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries and their
assignment of a portion of fault to that Defendant regardless, and sent them back for further
deliberations.
After further deliberation, the jury returned a second verdict, which contained the
following findings: 1) Defendant 3001 VALENTINE was negligent; 2) Defendant 3001
VALENTINE's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries; 3) Plaintiff
was negligent; 4) Plaintiff's negligence was the proximate cause of her own injuries; 5) Plaintiff
was entitled to $450,000 for her past pain and suffering; 6) Plaintiff was entitled to $0 for her
future pain and suffering; and 7) Plaintiff was entitled to $0 for her future medical expenses. The
jury found for the second time that Defendant BROWN STOVEWORKS did not defectively
design the stove at issue, however, this time the jury did not answer the question as to substantial
factor. Most pertinent for the purposes of this application, however, is that the jury did
not allocate percentages of fault to Plaintiff or either of the two Defendants in their
second verdict.
Decision of the Court
The
second verdict clearly indicates that the jury did not believe that 3001 VALENTINE's negligence
was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injuries on June 11, 2004. A finding of fact
solidified by their not allocating a percentage of fault to them or to the other Defendant BROWN
STOVEWORKS, INC. The fact that the jury in both verdicts went on to find that: 1) Plaintiff
was negligent; 2) her negligence was a proximate cause of her injuries; and 3) she was
entitled to $450,000 in past pain and suffering was mere surplusage and not an inconsistency
such to warrant a new trial, especially given the plethora of evidence adduced by the parties at
trial. See Mayer v. Goldberg, 241 AD2d 309 (1st Dept. 1997) (holding that "[h]aving
found that no party proximately caused the injury, the jury should have proceeded no further");
Pavlou v. City of NY, 21 AD3d 74 (1st Dept. 2005) (holding that "the jury should not
have apportioned liability . . . , or fixed an amount of damages, once it determined [no]
proximate cause . . . . The fact that the jury attempted such an award is a superfluous act that
does not require a new trial"); see also
Mateo v. 83 Post Ave Associates, 12 AD3d 205 (1st Dept. 2004) (holding that "[o]n
reconsideration [of its verdict], the jury was free to substantively 'alter its original statement so
as to conform to its real intention', and was not bound by the terms of its original verdict ").
Accordingly, Plaintiff's application for a judgment notwithstanding the
verdict or, in the alternative, for an order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial is
denied.
The foregoing shall constitute the decision and order of this Court.
[*3]
Dated:10/09/09
_________________________ J.S.C.
APPEARANCES:
BARTON, BARTON & PLOTKIN, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
420 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10170
(212) 687-6262
(212) 697-3043 (f)
RENDE, RYAN & DOWNES, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
BROWN STOVEWORKS, INC.
202 Mamaroneck Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 681-0444
(914) 681-0875 (f)
MARGARET G. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys for Defendant
3001 VALENTINE REALTY, LLC
200 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
(212) 683-9700
(212) 779-1499
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.