In Cortes v. Edoo, 228 A.D.2d 463 (2nd Dept. 1996), Cortes involved a car accident case in which the plaintiff-passenger sued the two drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. The jury found that both drivers were negligent but found that the negligence of the first driver was a substantial factor in causing the accident while the negligence of the second driver was not. Nevertheless, the jury apportioned 2% of liability to the second driver. The trial court, realizing that the jury's verdict was inconsistent, informed the jury that there was a problem with question number 5, gave the jury a new verdict sheet with more detailed written instructions, did not give any additional instructions to the jury and asked them to complete the new verdict sheet. The jury then returned a second verdict finding that both drivers were negligent, that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident, and apportioned fault in the same percentages as on the first verdict sheet. The second driver moved to set aside the verdict but the trial court denied her motion. The Second Department reversed the court's denial of the motion and vacated the jury verdict holding that "a new trial should be granted where the record demonstrates substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching a verdict." (Supra at 466.) While the court acknowledged that it was proper for the trial court to require the jury to reconsider its verdict, it held that the trial court's effort to clarify the verdict failed in this case because the court did not reinstruct the jury on the issue of proximate cause. The Second Department stated that the trial's court correction of the first verdict sheet was not sufficient to eliminate the jury's confusion and held that "in light of the jury's confusion on the initial verdict sheet, a new trial is required." (Id at 466.)