Bauer v. Kornhaber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bauer v. Kornhaber

123 A.D.2d 416, 506 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60176

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 416 (Bauer v. Kornhaber) 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

Bauer v. Kornhaber, 123 A.D.2d 416, 506 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants, Michael Kornhaber and Hubert Kornhaber, and the defendant Roberta Parker separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.), dated February 8, 1985, which, after a jury trial, granted the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as to damages only, which was in the principal amount of $7,500, to the extent of granting a new trial unless the parties stipulated to increase the verdict to the principal amount of $35,000.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion denied, and the jury’s verdict in the principal amount of $7,500 is reinstated.

Under the law in effect at the time of the trial, in order to warrant interference with the jury’s assessment of damages, the excessiveness or inadequacy of the award must have been such as to shock the conscience of the court (see, e.g., Petosa v City of New York, 63 AD2d 1016, 1016-1017; Torro v Altman, 97 AD2d 819). The record establishes that the plaintiff’s injuries, which were sustained in an automobile accident, included a simple fractured ankle and lacerations of the chin and right elbow. There were no unusual medical complications during the plaintiff’s convalescence, and we note that the plaintiff’s allegations of permanent injury were limited to subjective contentions of periodic pain. The plaintiff’s medical expert, who was not a treating physician and who never examined the plaintiff, testified that the plaintiff might be prone to develop arthritis in the ankle joint due to the injury. However, this testimony did not forecast the probability of arthritis, and the jury could have regarded such an opinion as purely speculative in nature. In light of the evidence presented, we cannot say that the jury’s $7,500 award was [417]*417inadequate. Mellen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants, Michael Kornhaber and Hubert Kornhaber, and the defendant Roberta Parker separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.), dated February 8, 1985, which, after a jury trial, granted the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as to damages only, which was in the principal amount of $7,500, to the extent of granting a new trial unless the parties stipulated to increase the verdict to the principal amount of $35,000.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion denied, and the jury’s verdict in the principal amount of $7,500 is reinstated.

Under the law in effect at the time of the trial, in order to warrant interference with the jury’s assessment of damages, the excessiveness or inadequacy of the award must have been such as to shock the conscience of the court (see, e.g., Petosa v City of New York, 63 AD2d 1016, 1016-1017; Torro v Altman, 97 AD2d 819). The record establishes that the plaintiff’s injuries, which were sustained in an automobile accident, included a simple fractured ankle and lacerations of the chin and right elbow. There were no unusual medical complications during the plaintiff’s convalescence, and we note that the plaintiff’s allegations of permanent injury were limited to subjective contentions of periodic pain. The plaintiff’s medical expert, who was not a treating physician and who never examined the plaintiff, testified that the plaintiff might be prone to develop arthritis in the ankle joint due to the injury. However, this testimony did not forecast the probability of arthritis, and the jury could have regarded such an opinion as purely speculative in nature. In light of the evidence presented, we cannot say that the jury’s $7,500 award was [417]*417inadequate. Mellen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 416, 506 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauer-v-kornhaber-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack