From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BENAIN v. NYC TRANSIT AUTH

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued October 5, 2000.

November 13, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), as, upon a jury verdict finding it 100 % at fault in the happening of the accident, and finding that the plaintiff Ira Lynn Benain sustained damages of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering, and upon the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, is in favor of the plaintiff Ira Lynn Benain and against it.

Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Lawrence A. Silver of counsel), for appellant.

Michael Quintana, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ephrem Wertenteil of counsel), for respondent Ira Lynn Benain and plaintiff Michael Benain.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and as a exercise of discretion, with costs, and a new trial is granted on the issue of damages with respect to the plaintiff Ira Lynn Benain only, unless within 30 days after service upon the plaintiff Ira Lynn Benain of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry, she shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict for past pain and suffering from $300,000 to $200,000, and for future pain and suffering from $500,000 to $100,000, and to the entry of an appropriate amended judgment accordingly; in the event that the plaintiff Ira Lynn Benain so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs and disbursements.

The injured plaintiff suffered a bimalleolar fracture of her left ankle as a result of tripping on a damaged step at the defendant's subway station located at Church Avenue and 18th Street in Brooklyn. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the verdict on the issue of liability was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, and therefore should not be disturbed (see, White v. Rubenstein, 255 A.D.2d 378; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134). However, the award of $300,000 for past pain and suffering deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation for the injured plaintiff's past pain and suffering to the extent indicated (see, CPLR 5501; Rydell v. Pan Am. Equities, 262 A.D.2d 213; Zavurov v. City of New York, 241 A.D.2d 491). The sum of $500,000 for future pain and suffering also deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances to the extent indicated (see, CPLR 5501; Zavurov v. City of New York, supra; Madrit v. City of New York, 210 A.D.2d 459).


Summaries of

BENAIN v. NYC TRANSIT AUTH

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

BENAIN v. NYC TRANSIT AUTH

Case Details

Full title:IRA LYNN BENAIN, RESPONDENT, ET AL., PLAINTIFF, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 874

Citing Cases

McNamara v. Hittner

However, the sums awarded for past and future pain and suffering deviate materially from what would be…

Luongo v. Doherty Enters.

New York courts have held that a jury verdict will not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence…