From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keefe v. E D Specialty Stands

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 10, 2000
272 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Summary

upholding jury award of $1 million ($1,489,883.86 adjusted for inflation) for future pain and suffering, based on a life expectancy of forty years, to a plaintiff who suffered a laceration to his ulnar nerve while performing iron work, resulting in permanent loss of feeling in his dominant hand and a fifty percent loss of strength in that hand

Summary of this case from Cedeno v. Broan-Nutone, LLC

Opinion

May 10, 2000

Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, Jr., J. — Negligence.

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs.

Before: Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hayes, Balio and Lawton, JJ.


Memorandum:

Plaintiff suffered a laceration to his ulnar nerve while performing iron work on bleachers and, despite three surgeries, has a permanent loss of feeling in his right hand, which is his dominant hand, and a permanent 50% loss of strength in that hand. Mter a jury trial on damages, plaintiff was awarded $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering to cover a 40-year period. We reject defendant's contention that the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation ( see, CPLR 5501[c]; McKeon v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 262 A.D.2d 7, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 818; see also, Van Deusen v. Norton Co., 204 A.D.2d 867, 870-871). We further reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in admitting evidence regarding the wage rates and fringe benefits of union ironworkers. Although plaintiff had not begun his apprenticeship at the time of the accident, he had completed all written and physical tests and had been notified that he would be accepted into the apprenticeship program. Thus, the loss of earnings was established with reasonable certainty ( see, Cranston v. Oxford Resources Corp., 173 A.D.2d 757, 758, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 860; see generally, Johnston v. Colvin, 145 A.D.2d 846, 848-849; cf., Naveja v. Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 148 A.D.2d 429, 430).


Summaries of

Keefe v. E D Specialty Stands

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 10, 2000
272 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

upholding jury award of $1 million ($1,489,883.86 adjusted for inflation) for future pain and suffering, based on a life expectancy of forty years, to a plaintiff who suffered a laceration to his ulnar nerve while performing iron work, resulting in permanent loss of feeling in his dominant hand and a fifty percent loss of strength in that hand

Summary of this case from Cedeno v. Broan-Nutone, LLC

awarding damages to plaintiff accepted into an ironworking apprenticeship

Summary of this case from Mathews v. ADM Milling Co.

In Keefe v. E D Specialty Stands, Inc., 708 N.Y.S.2d 214 (4th Dep't 2000), the Appellate Division upheld a jury verdict of $1 million to a plaintiff who "suffered a laceration to his ulnar nerve while performing iron work on bleachers and, despite three surgeries, has a permanent loss of feeling in his right [dominant] hand... and a permanent 50% loss of strength in that hand." Id.

Summary of this case from Adebiyi v. Yankee Fiber Control, Inc.

In Keefe v E & D Specialty Stands, Inc. (272 AD2d 949 [4th Dept 2000]), the plaintiff had not yet begun his apprenticeship with an ironworkers' union at the time of his accident.

Summary of this case from Perez v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.

In Keefe v E & D Specialty Stands, Inc. (272 AD2d 949 [4th Dept 2000]), the plaintiff had not yet begun his apprenticeship with an ironworkers' union at the time of his accident.

Summary of this case from Saginor v. Osib-BCRE 50th St. Holdings
Case details for

Keefe v. E D Specialty Stands

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS J. KEEFE, JR., RESPONDENT, v. E D SPECIALTY STANDS, INC.…

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

Date published: May 10, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 949 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 214

Citing Cases

Savillo v. Greenpoint Landing Assoc, L.L.C.

The union benefits were not hypothetical (compare Hackworth v WDW Dev., Inc., 224 AD2d 265 [1st Dept 1996])…

Saginor v. Osib-BCRE 50th St. Holdings

Where, however, the nature of a plaintiff's employment possibilities subsequent to an accident is reasonably…