Baum v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baum v. State

156 A.D.2d 927

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1989

DocketClaim No. 71414

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D.2d 927 (Baum v. State) 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

Baum v. State, 156 A.D.2d 927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously mod[928]*928ified on the facts and as modified affirmed with costs to claimants, in accordance with the following memorandum: Claimant Eli Baum suffered significant burns to his back and legs while being treated for a stroke at Upstate Medical Center. The court awarded him damages of $300,000, and his wife, Hinda Baum, $3,500 on her derivative claim. Claimants contend that the damage awards were inadequate. We find that the $300,000 award was adequate. Upon the exercise of our independent fact-finding powers (see, Koester v State of New York, 90 AD2d 357, 363-364), we find that Mrs. Baum’s loss of society, services and companionship justifies an award on the derivative claim of $30,000 (Court of Claims Act § 24; CPLR 5501 [c]). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims, Margolis, J. — medical malpractice.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously mod[928]*928ified on the facts and as modified affirmed with costs to claimants, in accordance with the following memorandum: Claimant Eli Baum suffered significant burns to his back and legs while being treated for a stroke at Upstate Medical Center. The court awarded him damages of $300,000, and his wife, Hinda Baum, $3,500 on her derivative claim. Claimants contend that the damage awards were inadequate. We find that the $300,000 award was adequate. Upon the exercise of our independent fact-finding powers (see, Koester v State of New York, 90 AD2d 357, 363-364), we find that Mrs. Baum’s loss of society, services and companionship justifies an award on the derivative claim of $30,000 (Court of Claims Act § 24; CPLR 5501 [c]). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims, Margolis, J. — medical malpractice.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baum-v-state-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack