Gayle v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
91 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Wilma Williams v. Kfc National Management Company (2d Cir. 2004)
- Davids v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 2012)
- prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 15,466 Luis Liriano v. Hobart Corporation, 616 Melrose Meat Corporation,s/h/a Super Associated, Third-Party (2d Cir. 1999)
- Delta Financial Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance (In re Delta Financial Corp.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware 2008)
- Wurtzel v. Starbucks Coffee Co. (District Court, E.D. New York 2003)
- Cross v. Roberts (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Quiroz v. 176 N. Main, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Vega-Santana v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2013)
- Tkachuk v. D&J Realty of N.Y., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Great Northern Insurance Company v. Laboz (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- Mulligan v. R&D Props. of N.Y. Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Estate of Gustafson Ex Rel. Reginella v. Target Corp. (2d Cir. 2016)
- Hernandez v. Alstom Transportation, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Bee v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 2014)
- Ascher v. Target Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 2007)
- Weichsel v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Mannarino v. FCA US LLC (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2022)
- A.L. v. New York City Hous. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Tyrell v. Pollak (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- SPATH, WILLIAM v. STORYBOOK CHILD CARE, INC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Spath v. Storybook Child Care, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Spath v. Storybook Child Care, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Timmins v. Benjamin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Holliday v. Hudson Armored Car & Courier Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp. (N.Y. 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with *937 costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on appeal to that Court.
Plaintiff Kenneth Gayle was injured when his car skidded on a wet roadway and collided with a parked trailer. There were no eyewitnesses to the accident, and, as a result of injuries sustained in the accident, Gayle had a limited recollection of the accident. Relying primarily on circumstantial evidence, plaintiffs argued that a large puddle formed on the roadway due to defendant’s negligence in maintaining a proper drainage system and that this was a proximate cause of the accident. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs and absolved plaintiff Kenneth Gayle of all negligence. In a 3-2 decision, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof, as charged by the trial court, on the issue of proximate cause. The majority concluded that “[t]here are many other just as plausible variables and factors which could have caused or contributed to the accident * * * none of which were ruled out by the plaintiffs” (Gayle v City of New York, 247 AD2d 431).
The Appellate Division erred in determining that plaintiffs were required to rule out all plausible variables and factors that could have caused or contributed to the accident. Plaintiffs need not positively exclude every other possible cause of the accident. Rather, the proof must render those other causes sufficiently “remote” or “technical” to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence (see, Schneider v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr., 67 NY2d 743, 744). A plaintiff need only prove that it was “more likely” (id., at 745) or “more reasonable” (Wragge v Lizza Asphalt Constr. Co., 17 NY2d 313, 321) that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence than by some other agency. The expert testimony, physical evidence and Gayle’s testimony provided a basis in the record from which the jury could conclude that defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the automobile accident. Plaintiffs met their- burden of proving a prima facie case as a matter of law.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
Order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.