From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nautel v. Crates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 2, 1991
173 A.D.2d 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 2, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Schenectady County (Doran, J.).


As a result of a fall, plaintiff sustained a fractured clavicle and other injuries; this negligence action followed. A jury awarded plaintiff $10,000 for pain, suffering and disability endured to the date of the verdict, but nothing for future damages. On the return of the verdict, plaintiff's motion to set it aside as inadequate and contrary to the evidence was denied.

Shortly thereafter, plaintiff moved again, this time on formal papers, to set the verdict aside. Supreme Court concluded that in view of the uncontradicted evidence that "[t]he bony prominence of the plaintiff's left clavicle is clearly a permanent disfigurement", the jury's failure to award plaintiff any damages for future injury, pain, suffering and disability deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]). A new trial on the question of future damages for the permanent collarbone disfigurement only was ordered unless defendant agreed to stipulate to pay $15,000 for that injury. Defendant argues on appeal that the court abused its discretion when it altered the jury's verdict; we disagree.

Neither party has questioned the propriety of Supreme Court employing this standard of review (but see, Siegel, 1986 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5501:10 [1991 Pocket Part], at 5).

Although defense counsel's recollection is that Supreme Court never saw plaintiff's clavicle, which she displayed to the jury during the trial, the court's decision implicitly suggests otherwise. Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that plaintiff's collarbone was permanently disfigured. Photographs received into evidence at trial depict a prominent deformity of the clavicle. Both plaintiff and her mother testified without objection that the photographs, though taken approximately one year prior to the trial, accurately reflected the collarbone as it looked at the time of trial. Moreover, plaintiff's medical expert testified that there was a "deformity" which was "permanent". Finally, the medical records classified the prominence as permanent and defendant introduced no evidence to the contrary. Given the undisputed evidence respecting the disfiguring nature of plaintiff's injury, Supreme Court's decision to adjust the jury award was a reasonable exercise of its discretionary powers (see, Klump v Bowman, 117 A.D.2d 857, 858; cf., Hutchins v Gorlicki, 92 A.D.2d 1000, 1001, appeal dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 757).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nautel v. Crates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 2, 1991
173 A.D.2d 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Nautel v. Crates

Case Details

Full title:STACIA NAUTEL, Respondent, v. DAVID CRATES, Appellant

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

Date published: May 2, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 800

Citing Cases

Rakich v. Lawes

We likewise perceive no error in Supreme Court's setting aside the damages award on plaintiff's claim.…

Duncan v. Hillebrandt

No surgical intervention was required. Because the medical experts agreed that no permanent functional…