From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fleming v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 1999
262 A.D.2d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued May 11, 1999

June 21, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., (1) the defendant appeals (a) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), entered March 20, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the infant plaintiff and against it in the principal amount of $250,000, and (b), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated July 20, 1998, as denied its motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the credible evidence and as excessive, and (2) the plaintiffs cross-appeal from the judgment.

Jackson Consumano (Mauro Goldberg, Great Neck, N Y [Kenneth Mauro and Christopher Simone] of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Allen L. Rothenberg, New York, N.Y. (Annette M. Scarano of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court ( see, 22 NYCRR 670.8[c], [e]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.

The infant plaintiff sustained severe burns to her face and chest resulting in permanent scarring when she came into contact with an exposed steam pipe in her bedroom. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the plaintiffs adduced sufficient evidence from which a jury could rationally conclude that the defendant was negligent in failing to insulate the steam pipe ( see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493). Moreover, upon our review of the record, we find that the verdict is based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Brown v. New York City Hous. Auth., 250 A.D.2d 719; Morinia v. New York City Hous. Auth., 250 A.D.2d 657; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit or do not require reversal.


Summaries of

Fleming v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 1999
262 A.D.2d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Fleming v. New York City Housing Authority

Case Details

Full title:GABRIELLE FLEMING, etc., et al., respondents-appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY…

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

Date published: Jun 21, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 663

Citing Cases

Weigl v. Quincy Specialties Company

(See, Duzon v. State of New York, 244 A.D.2d 189[1st Dept 1997][decision after bench trial awarding plaintiff…

Weigl v. QUINCY SPECIALTIES

) In contrast, awards in the lower range of $1,000,000 and below were cited by defendant. (See, Duzon v State…