Lenahan v. Goucher

Yesawich Jr., J. (dissenting).

The only proof bearing upon the actual happening of this accident consists of the conflicting versions testified to by the two drivers involved. Assessing the parties’ testimony was the special function of the jury, and its resolution of credibility and disputed fact issues is not to bé facilely dismissed (see, Ellis v Hoelzel, 57 AD2d 968, 969; La Porte v Board of Educ., 57 AD2d 1029). On defendant’s testimony, the jury could have found plaintiff Bernice C. Lenahan to be 35% responsible for the collision because, after starting to pass the parked public works…