From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Karamvelil v. Fishman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 1998
248 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 30, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the jury properly concluded that the daily activities of the plaintiff Mariamma Varughese Karamvelil were substantially curtailed for more than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident which caused her injuries, thereby establishing "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955; Walsh v. Kings Plaza Replacement Serv., 239 A.D.2d 408; Kim v. Cohen, 208 A.D.2d 807, 808; Gleissner v. LoPresti, 135 A.D.2d 494, 495).

Further, contrary to the defendants' contention, considering the nature and consequence of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the award of damages did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, Brown v. Stark, 205 A.D.2d 725; Orris v. West, 189 A.D.2d 866).

The defendants' remaining contention is without merit.

Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Karamvelil v. Fishman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 1998
248 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Karamvelil v. Fishman

Case Details

Full title:MARIAMMA V. KARAMVELIL et al., Respondents, v. LOUIS FISHMAN et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 30, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
670 N.Y.S.2d 319