Lewis v. Vertex Constr. Corp.

6 Citing cases

  1. Blair v. Coleman

    211 A.D.3d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    . "Where the parties present conflicting expert testimony, the jury is entitled to accept one expert's opinion and reject that of another expert, and its resolution of the conflicting testimony is entitled to great weight on appeal" ( Lewis v. Vertex Constr. Corp., 170 A.D.3d 990, 991, 96 N.Y.S.3d 598 ). Here, the award for damages for future pain and suffering was excessive.

  2. Sagy v. Senft

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 51158 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2022)

    Canale v. Khananayev, 173 A.D.3d 965, 966 (2nd Dep't 2019); Lewis v. Vertex Const. Corp., 170 A.D.3d 990, 991 (2nd Dep't 2019); Chioffe v. Pyne, 2021 NY Misc. LEXIS 6181, 73 Misc.3d 140(A) (App. Term, 2nd Dep't 2021) (while finding that the jury could have fairly interpreted the evidence that plaintiff suffered a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member and significant limitation of use of a body function or system categories of Insurance Law § 5102[d], it also affirmed the trial court's reduction of the jury's award from $750,000 to $300,000); Pineda, 2021 NY Misc. LEXIS 202 at 3-4).

  3. Buckham v. 322 Equity, LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3874 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the jury verdict finding that the injuries to the plaintiff's right knee and both shoulders were caused by the accident was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of the plaintiff and her treating orthopedic surgeon over that of the defendant's experts, and the jury's determination that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the accident was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lewis v Vertex Constr. Corp., 170 A.D.3d 990, 991). Moreover, considering the nature and the extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the awards for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501[c]; Petit v Archer, 218 A.D.3d 695; Tarpley v New York City Tr. Auth., 177 A.D.3d 929, 930; Kusulas v Saco, 134 A.D.3d 772, 773-774).

  4. Pecoraro v. Tribuzio

    212 A.D.3d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    "[T]he discretionary power to set aside a jury verdict and order a new trial must be exercised with considerable caution" ( Larkin v. Wagner, 170 A.D.3d 1145, 1147, 96 N.Y.S.3d 664 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeBallas v. Occupational & Sports Medicine of Brookhaven, P.C., 46 A.D.3d 498, 846 N.Y.S.2d 664 ). "Where the parties present conflicting expert testimony, the jury is entitled to accept one expert's opinion and reject that of another expert, and its resolution of the conflicting testimony is entitled to great weight on appeal" ( Lewis v. Vertex Constr. Corp., 170 A.D.3d 990, 991, 96 N.Y.S.3d 598 ; seeCalpo–Rivera v. Brady, 163 A.D.3d 910, 911, 82 N.Y.S.3d 72 ). Here, conflicting evidence was presented at trial regarding the plaintiff's physical condition prior to the accident, from which the jury could infer that much of the plaintiff's pain and suffering was attributable to injuries she sustained in other, prior accidents and to her preexisting degenerative conditions, and that the plaintiff did not have any future medical expenses as a result of the subject accident (seeMurphy v. Ford, 173 A.D.3d 882, 883, 100 N.Y.S.3d 530 ).

  5. Martinez v. Coca-Cola Refreshments U.S., Inc.

    187 A.D.3d 1170 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    "The discretionary power to set aside a jury verdict and order a new trial must be exercised with considerable caution" ( Larkin v. Wagner, 170 A.D.3d 1145, 1147, 96 N.Y.S.3d 664 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeBallas v. Occupational & Sports Medicine of Brookhaven, P.C., 46 A.D.3d 498, 846 N.Y.S.2d 664 ). "Where the parties present conflicting expert testimony, the jury is entitled to accept one expert's opinion and reject that of another expert, and its resolution of the conflicting testimony is entitled to great weight on appeal" ( Lewis v. Vertex Constr. Corp., 170 A.D.3d 990, 991, 96 N.Y.S.3d 598 ). The jury's resolution of credibility issues is entitled to deference (seeCanale v. Khananayev, 173 A.D.3d 965, 966, 102 N.Y.S.3d 675 ).

  6. Lewis v. Country-Wide Ins. Co.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 32431 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    The judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department. See Lewis v Vertex Constr. Corp, 170 A.D.3d 990 (2nd Dept. 2019). The judgment was not paid.