Adamy v. Ziriakus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adamy v. Ziriakus

254 A.D.2d 747, 678 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10438

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 2, 1998

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 747 (Adamy v. Ziriakus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adamy v. Ziriakus, 254 A.D.2d 747, 678 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously [748]*748affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc., contends that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion seeking a lump sum payment of the periodic installments on the annuity for future damages that accrued from the date of the verdict (October 7, 1994). There is no merit to that contention. The trial court has discretion to order an immediate lump sum award to be deducted from any annuity awarded (see, Williams v Bright, 230 AD2d 548, 557, appeal dismissed 90 NY2d 935). We also reject the contention that an immediate lump sum award represents a windfall for plaintiff and thus violates the statutory scheme of CPLR articles 50-A and 50-B (see, Rohring v City of Niagara Falls, 84 NY2d 60, 69-70). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Damages.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously [748]*748affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc., contends that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion seeking a lump sum payment of the periodic installments on the annuity for future damages that accrued from the date of the verdict (October 7, 1994). There is no merit to that contention. The trial court has discretion to order an immediate lump sum award to be deducted from any annuity awarded (see, Williams v Bright, 230 AD2d 548, 557, appeal dismissed 90 NY2d 935). We also reject the contention that an immediate lump sum award represents a windfall for plaintiff and thus violates the statutory scheme of CPLR articles 50-A and 50-B (see, Rohring v City of Niagara Falls, 84 NY2d 60, 69-70). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Damages.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 747, 678 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adamy-v-ziriakus-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack