From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rowe v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

01-00707

Argued April 30, 2002

June 3, 2002

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), entered December 22, 2000, which upon, inter alia, a jury verdict on the issue of liability finding the plaintiff 20% at fault and the defendant 80% at fault in the happening of the accident, the denial of its motion, among other things, to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, and a jury verdict on the issue of damages awarding the plaintiff $22,000 for past loss of earnings, $28,324.29 for past hospital expenses, $24,298.19 for past physicians' services, $400,000 for past pain and suffering, $100,000 for future hospital expenses, $30,000 for future physician's services, and $2,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and upon the denial of the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the damage awards as excessive, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.

Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Lawrence A. Silver and Steve S. Efron of counsel), for appellant.

Panken Besterman Weiner Becker Sherman, LLP (Howard B. Sherman and Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for respondent.

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., NANCY E. SMITH, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, and a new trial is granted on the issues of damages as to past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering only, unless within 30 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, the plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages for past pain and suffering from the sum of $400,000 to the sum of $300,000 and for future pain and suffering from $2,000,000 to $600,000 and to the entry of an appropriate amended judgment in her favor; in the event the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment accordingly.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for judgment in its favor as a matter of law on the issue of liability, as there was a rational basis upon which the jury could have found in the plaintiff's favor (see Rhabb v. New York City Housing Auth., 41 N.Y.2d 200).

The Supreme Court's charge to the jury properly stated the applicable law (see Green v. Downs, 27 N.Y.2d 205; Martino v. Triangle Rubber Co., Inc., 249 A.D.2d 454, 455). Moreover, the trial court did not unduly interfere with the defendant's case presentation or indicate any partiality or bias warranting reversal (see Bielicki v. T.J. Bentey, Inc., 267 A.D.2d 266; Givens v. Sinert, 243 A.D.2d 443).

However, the awards of damages for past and future pain and suffering deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation to the extent indicated herein (see CPLR 5501[c]; Zavurov v. City of New York, 241 A.D.2d 491; Cranston v. Oxford Resources Corp., 173 A.D.2d 757).

PRUDENTI, P.J., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rowe v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Rowe v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:STEPHANIE ROWE, respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Jun 3, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
742 N.Y.S.2d 910