Bell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bell v. City of New York

286 A.D.2d 357, 728 N.Y.S.2d 723, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7994

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bell v. City of New York. Read the opinion of the Court — 256 A.D.2d 290 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 13, 2001·Published

Opinion

In action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated May 8, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff damages in the principal sums of $100,000 for past pain and suffering, $500,000 for future pain and suffering, and $600,000 for future medical expenses, and upon an order of the same court dated March 14, 2000, granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to reduce the award for future medical expenses to the sum of $18,000, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find no reason to disturb the verdict as modified by the Supreme Court.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated May 8, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff damages in the principal sums of $100,000 for past pain and suffering, $500,000 for future pain and suffering, and $600,000 for future medical expenses, and upon an order of the same court dated March 14, 2000, granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to reduce the award for future medical expenses to the sum of $18,000, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find no reason to disturb the verdict as modified by the Supreme Court.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Bell v. City of New York, 286 A.D.2d 357, 728 N.Y.S.2d 723, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7994 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

286 A.D.2d 357 (Bell v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.