Araujo v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Araujo v. State

61 A.D.3d 585, 877 N.Y.S.2d 315

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 2009·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Judgment of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Terry Jane Ruderman, J.), entered December 12, 2007, after a nonjury trial, awarding claimant the principal sum of $65,000 for past pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination that the worsening condition of claimant’s knee after his 1997 accident was caused not by the [586] accident but by a degenerative condition that had its nascency in a surgery predating the accident by more than nine years was a result of the resolution of credibility issues presented by conflicting expert testimony, and there is no basis to disturb that determination (see Watts v State of New York, 25 AD3d 324 [2006] ). Accordingly, the determination to make no award for future pain and suffering will not be disturbed (see Mejia v JMM Audubon, 1 AD3d 261 [2003]).

The award of $65,000 for past pain and suffering does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances presented (CPLR 5501 [c]; see e.g. Lopez v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 40 AD3d 221 [2007] ). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Terry Jane Ruderman, J.), entered December 12, 2007, after a nonjury trial, awarding claimant the principal sum of $65,000 for past pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination that the worsening condition of claimant’s knee after his 1997 accident was caused not by the [586] accident but by a degenerative condition that had its nascency in a surgery predating the accident by more than nine years was a result of the resolution of credibility issues presented by conflicting expert testimony, and there is no basis to disturb that determination (see Watts v State of New York, 25 AD3d 324 [2006] ). Accordingly, the determination to make no award for future pain and suffering will not be disturbed (see Mejia v JMM Audubon, 1 AD3d 261 [2003]).

The award of $65,000 for past pain and suffering does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances presented (CPLR 5501 [c]; see e.g. Lopez v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 40 AD3d 221 [2007] ). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

Araujo v. State, 61 A.D.3d 585, 877 N.Y.S.2d 315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

61 A.D.3d 585 (Araujo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related