## Facts

- Theodore Finkel was standing on a sidewalk when he was struck by a Cadillac.
- The Cadillac had collided with a vehicle owned by Hocage Taxi.
- Finkel sued the owners and drivers of both vehicles, alleging negligent operation that caused the collision and his resulting injuries.
- The case proceeded to trial in Supreme Court, Kings County.
- A jury returned a verdict in Finkel’s favor, and judgment was entered on that verdict.
- The Cadillac defendants (including Katz) appealed from the judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the Cadillac defendants were negligent.
2. Whether the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the Cadillac defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of Finkel’s injuries (i.e., that the sidewalk impact was a foreseeable result of the collision).
3. Whether the verdict should be disturbed as against the weight of the evidence.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment entered on the jury verdict for Finkel.
- The court held that the record permitted the jury to find negligence by the Cadillac defendants and to find that such negligence was a proximate cause of Finkel’s injuries.
- The court declined to set aside the verdict, concluding it was supported by the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Questions of negligence and proximate cause are generally for the factfinder where there is evidence from which different conclusions may reasonably be drawn.
- On appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict, the verdict will not be disturbed if there is a fair interpretation of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings.
- A defendant’s negligent operation of a vehicle may be found a proximate cause of injuries to a pedestrian when the collision and the resulting movement of a vehicle onto or toward the sidewalk are within the range of reasonably foreseeable consequences of the negligent driving.

## Conclusion

Finkel v. Katz involved a pedestrian injured when a Cadillac, after colliding with a Hocage Taxi vehicle, struck him on the sidewalk; after a jury found for Finkel and judgment was entered, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the evidence supported findings of negligence and proximate cause and that the verdict should not be set aside.


Finkel v. Katz, 84 A.D.2d 730, 444 N.Y.S.2d 90 (1981)