From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mihileas v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 12, 1999
266 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

holding that a plaintiff with a preexisting condition may only recover for "increased pain and suffering caused by defendant's acts"

Summary of this case from Carroll v. U.S.

Opinion

November 12, 1999

Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, McNamara, J. — Negligence.

PRESENT: DENMAN, P. J., GREEN, PINE, SCUDDER AND CALLAHAN, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of claimant, the award of damages does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]). The record establishes that claimant's venous insufficiency was a preexisting condition. Claimant's medical expert acknowledged that claimant's venous insufficiency condition was a natural progression from the varicose veins claimant had when he began his prison term. He opined that claimant's condition was further exacerbated by claimant having to wear State-regulation boots, sleep on a bed that was too short for him, and work in the horticulture program. Claimant's medical expert did not quantify, however, either the probability of avoiding the condition or the period of time in which claimant could have avoided its occurrence had he received better treatment. Claimant may recover only for such increased pain and suffering caused by defendant's acts (see, Brown v. State of New York, 192 A.D.2d 936, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 654; Ortiz v. Mendolia, 116 A.D.2d 707), and under the circumstances the $12,500 award of damages was adequate.

We reject the contention that claimant is entitled to an award of attorney's fees; such an award is expressly prohibited by Court of Claims Act § 27 (see, Spickerman v. State of New York, 85 A.D.2d 60, 61).


Summaries of

Mihileas v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 12, 1999
266 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

holding that a plaintiff with a preexisting condition may only recover for "increased pain and suffering caused by defendant's acts"

Summary of this case from Carroll v. U.S.
Case details for

Mihileas v. State

Case Details

Full title:PERRY MIHILEAS, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT, v. STATE OF NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Nov 12, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 891

Citing Cases

Molina v. Berkowitz

Contrary to defendants' argument, the court finds that plaintiff set forth a prima facie cause of action for…

Johnson v. Schrader

With respect to the cross appeal of plaintiff, we conclude that the jury's award of damages to plaintiff for…