From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amonbea v. Perry Beverage Distributors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 28, 2002
294 A.D.2d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1209

May 28, 2002.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered on or about February 7, 2001, which set aside, as excessive, a jury verdict of $7,077,000, consisting of $4 million for future medical expenses, $77,000 and $1.5 million for past and future lost earnings, respectively, and $200,000 and $1.3 million for past and future pain and suffering, respectively, and directed a new trial on damages unless plaintiff stipulated to reduced awards of $100,000 for future medical expenses, $500,000 for future lost earnings, and $100,000 and $500,000 for past and future pain and suffering, respectively, unanimously modified, on the facts, to increase the amounts to which plaintiff must stipulate to avoid a new trial to $200,000 and $750,000 for past and future pain and suffering, respectively, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

ARNOLD E. DIJOSEPH III, for plaintiff-respondent-appellant.

MERRIL S. BISCONE, for defendants-appellants-respondents.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner, JJ.


In a May 1996 car accident, the 40-year-old plaintiff, a per diem nurse's aide, sustained four herniated discs that are permanent and painful. Under the circumstances, the awards for past and future pain and suffering, as reduced by the trial court, are inadequate, and we accordingly modify as indicated above (cf., Skow v. Jones, Lang Wooton Corp., 240 A.D.2d 194, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 758). The award for future medical expenses, as reduced, is in accord with the weight of the evidence and does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under these circumstances (cf., Mangiafridda v. Mahyedin, 248 A.D.2d 200). We have considered the parties' arguments concerning other aspects of the award, including the trial court's implicit calculation of future lost earnings on the basis that plaintiff would have become a full-time employee but would not have become a licensed practical nurse, and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Amonbea v. Perry Beverage Distributors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 28, 2002
294 A.D.2d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Amonbea v. Perry Beverage Distributors

Case Details

Full title:GRACE AMONBEA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, v. PERRY BEVERAGE…

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

Date published: May 28, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 879

Citing Cases

Madia v. Garcia

at 449–450, 106 N.Y.S.3d 295 ). Because the jury award for past pain and suffering in this case was far lower…

LUPO v. PRO FOODS, LLC

Consequently, there is no basis to set aside the award as excessive. Plaintiff, in its motion, has cited…