From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mogil v. Gorgone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1996
225 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 18, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the second decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a decretal paragraph awarding judgment in favor of the defendants third-party plaintiffs and against the third-party defendant upon their payment to the plaintiff of a sum which exceeds their proportionate share of liability; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendants third-party plaintiffs' contentions, the jury verdict apportioning liability was not against the weight of the evidence. The conflicting evidence presented a question of credibility which the jury resolved and the verdict was reached upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Campbell v Driscoll, 190 A.D.2d 771; Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129; see also, Rice v Massalone, 160 A.D.2d 861; Sic v Moran, 208 A.D.2d 607).

Further, it is well settled that the amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is primarily a question of fact for the jury (see, Rodriguez v City of New York, 191 A.D.2d 420; Florsz v Ogruk, 184 A.D.2d 546). An award is excessive or inadequate if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]). Considering the totality of the plaintiff's injuries and the period of disability accompanied by pain and suffering, we find that the jury verdict of $150,000 did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Orris v Orris, 189 A.D.2d 866; Stern v Calzado, 163 A.D.2d 299).

However, we find that the judgment must be modified since the defendants third-party plaintiffs are not entitled to contribution from the third-party defendant until they have paid the plaintiff an amount in excess of their share of the judgment (see, CPLR 1402; see also, Klinger v Dudley, 41 N.Y.2d 362, 369; McCabe v Queensboro Farm Prods., 22 N.Y.2d 204; Adams v Lindsey, 77 Misc.2d 824, 826). O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mogil v. Gorgone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1996
225 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Mogil v. Gorgone

Case Details

Full title:CAROL MOGIL, Respondent, v. STEVE GORGONE et al., Defendants and…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 484

Citing Cases

Vaval v. Nyrac

The plaintiffs contention that the jury verdict on damages was inadequate is without merit. The amount of…

Troiano v. Alfonso A. Ilaria

The defendants' argument that the plaintiffs failure so impaired his credibility that the complaint ought to…