Benedetto v. Fedder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Benedetto v. Fedder

248 A.D.2d 657, 670 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3491

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 30, 1998·Published

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), entered December 19, 1996, as, after a jury trial, is in favor of them and against the defendants in the principal sum of only $5,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Given the proof presented at trial, there is no reason to disturb the jury’s finding that, as a result of Margaret L. Benedetto’s neck injury, she sustained a significant limitation of the use of a body function rather than the permanent loss or limitation of the use of a body function. The amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is primarily a question of fact for the jury (see, Gaetan v New York City Tr. Auth., 213 AD2d 510). The jury’s award of $5,000 for past pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Walsh v Kings Plaza Replacement Serv., 239 AD2d 408).

O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, 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 plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), entered December 19, 1996, as, after a jury trial, is in favor of them and against the defendants in the principal sum of only $5,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Given the proof presented at trial, there is no reason to disturb the jury’s finding that, as a result of Margaret L. Benedetto’s neck injury, she sustained a significant limitation of the use of a body function rather than the permanent loss or limitation of the use of a body function. The amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is primarily a question of fact for the jury (see, Gaetan v New York City Tr. Auth., 213 AD2d 510). The jury’s award of $5,000 for past pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Walsh v Kings Plaza Replacement Serv., 239 AD2d 408).

O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Benedetto v. Fedder, 248 A.D.2d 657, 670 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

248 A.D.2d 657 (Benedetto v. Fedder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related