Becker v. New York Telephone Co.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff is entitled to a new trial because the charge given by the court was confusing, incoherent and incomplete with respect to the applicable legal principles (see, Cumbo v Valente, 118 AD2d 679; Lopato v Kinney Rent-A-Car, 73 AD2d 565; Biener v City of New York, 47 AD2d 520; see also, Runfola v Bryant, 127 AD2d 972). Supreme Court failed to give a specific charge on comparative negligence, intermingled the principles of comparative negligence and proximate cause, and interjected elements of…