From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paolini v. Sienkiewicz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 27, 2000.

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Set Aside Verdict.

PRESENT: HAYES, J. P., HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and verdict reinstated. Memorandum : Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's award of damages as contrary to the weight of the evidence. It cannot be said that the evidence so preponderated in favor of plaintiff that the verdict awarding him $17,500 for past pain and suffering could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746; Wesolek v. Tops Mkts., 255 A.D.2d 972). Nor is the award of $5,000 for future pain and suffering over a two-year period contrary to the weight of the evidence. The court determined as a matter of law that plaintiff had sustained a significant disfigurement based on a scar on his forehead that was 3 centimeters long and 5 millimeters wide. Plaintiff's plastic surgeon testified, however, that the scar could be improved with surgery and that, as a result of the surgery, "the scar would be longer, but less noticeable." The jury, having had the opportunity to view the scar, could have determined based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence that with such surgical revision the scar would no longer constitute a significant disfigurement, and thus that plaintiff was not entitled to damages for future pain and suffering beyond the two-year period ( see generally, Petrivelli v Walz , 227 A.D.2d 735, 736).


Summaries of

Paolini v. Sienkiewicz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Paolini v. Sienkiewicz

Case Details

Full title:ARNOLD J. PAOLINI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WALTER V. SIENKIEWICZ…

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

Date published: Dec 27, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 858 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
719 N.Y.S.2d 408

Citing Cases

Smith v. Cattani

Therefore, the damages verdict for past and future pain and suffering will not be disturbed.See, e.g.,…

Hornicek v. Yonchik

Furthermore, with regard to future pain and suffering, the only evidence submitted by plaintiff was the fact…