From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Professional Painting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 10, 1994
202 A.D.2d 263 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 10, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Edward Amann, Jr., J.).


In light of, inter alia, the testimony of plaintiff, his father and two of his treating physicians, it cannot be said that the jury unreasonably concluded that defendant Brody negligently parked his vehicle and proximately caused plaintiff's injuries (see, Ferrer v. Harris, 55 N.Y.2d 285, 293-294). We also note that the damages awarded to plaintiff do not materially deviate from what would be reasonable under similar circumstances. (CPLR 5501 [c].) Finally, a missing witness charge was unnecessary with regard to plaintiff's mother as her testimony would have been cumulative to that of the plaintiff and the father (see, Lipp v Saks, 129 A.D.2d 681, 684).

We have considered all other claims and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Smith v. Professional Painting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 10, 1994
202 A.D.2d 263 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Smith v. Professional Painting, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID SMITH, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, HERBERT SMITH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 10, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 263 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 641

Citing Cases

Bouchard v. Canadian Pacific, Ltd.

We note that the Court of Appeals, in interpreting Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1), has stated that "the…