Summary
In Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 238 AD2d 125 [1st Dcpt 1997], the Court found that plaintiff's award of $1,192, 502.25 was not excessive based on plaintiff's expert witness's testimony that plaintiff will require a future knee replacement, and plaintiff was missing a large portion of her kneecap, had an atrophied right leg and severe limitations of motion requiring use of a walking cane, suffered from degenerative arthritis, was in constant pain, could not fully perform her job duties, and will require two more operations.
Summary of this case from Watanabe v. SherpaOpinion
April 1, 1997
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J., and a jury), entered March 14, 1996, awarding plaintiff $1,192,502.25 after adjustments pursuant to CPLR 5041, with interest of 9%, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The uncontroverted testimony of plaintiff's medical expert that plaintiff will require a future knee replacement was not speculative in nature and was properly permitted even though the expert did not state that opinion through use of the phrase "reasonable degree of medical certainty" ( Matott v. Ward, 48 N.Y.2d 455). Nor do we find the award excessive where as a result of the accident, plaintiff is missing a large portion of her kneecap, has an atrophied right leg and severe limitations of motion requiring use of a walking cane, suffers from degenerative arthritis, is in constant pain, cannot fully perform her job duties, and will require two more operations. There is no merit to defendant's contention that the interest rate should have been determined as a matter of discretion under Public Housing Law § 157 (5) subject to a maximum of 9% ( see, Mirand v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 194).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.