Calzado v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calzado v. New York City Transit Authority

304 A.D.2d 385, 758 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3872

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

DecidedApril 10, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 385 (Calzado v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Calzado v. New York City Transit Authority, 304 A.D.2d 385, 758 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J., and a jury), entered on or about November 30, 2001, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a fall on a platform at the base of a set of steps leading up to an elevated subway station, apportioning liability 75% against defendant New York City Transit Authority and 25% against plaintiff, and awarding preapportionment, prestructured damages of, inter alia, $100,000 and $700,000 for past and future pain and suffering, respectively, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While plaintiff’s attorney’s remarks on summation seeking to fashion a conspiracy to cover up the facts surrounding plaintiff's fall were deplorable, they did not warrant a mistrial and the trial court’s denial of such motion was a proper exercise of discretion. Plaintiff’s case was very strong, and we are satisfied that the net effect of counsel’s improper, but largely isolated, conspiracy allusion was minimal (compare Melendez v New York City Tr. Auth., 196 AD2d 460, 462 [1993]; Clarke v New York City Tr. Auth., 174 AD2d 268, 278 [1992]).

[386]*386The award of $100,000 for past pain and suffering over a two-year period for a torn anterior cruciate ligament and a torn medial meniscus does not deviate materially from reasonable compensation (cf. Garcia v Queens Surface Corp., 271 AD2d 277, 278 [2000]; Myers v Schaffer Grocery Corp., 281 AD2d 156 [2001]; Lanpont v Savvas Cab Corp., 244 AD2d 208 [1997]). Likewise, in view of testimony that plaintiff will ultimately develop arthritis and require knee replacement surgery, the $700,000 award for future pain and suffering over a projected 32-year period is not so disproportionate to what constitutes reasonable compensation as to warrant reduction (cf. Mujica v State Univ. Constr. Fund, 275 AD2d 976 [2000]; Cruz v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 259 AD2d 432 [1999]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J., and a jury), entered on or about November 30, 2001, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a fall on a platform at the base of a set of steps leading up to an elevated subway station, apportioning liability 75% against defendant New York City Transit Authority and 25% against plaintiff, and awarding preapportionment, prestructured damages of, inter alia, $100,000 and $700,000 for past and future pain and suffering, respectively, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While plaintiff’s attorney’s remarks on summation seeking to fashion a conspiracy to cover up the facts surrounding plaintiff's fall were deplorable, they did not warrant a mistrial and the trial court’s denial of such motion was a proper exercise of discretion. Plaintiff’s case was very strong, and we are satisfied that the net effect of counsel’s improper, but largely isolated, conspiracy allusion was minimal (compare Melendez v New York City Tr. Auth., 196 AD2d 460, 462 [1993]; Clarke v New York City Tr. Auth., 174 AD2d 268, 278 [1992]).

[386]*386The award of $100,000 for past pain and suffering over a two-year period for a torn anterior cruciate ligament and a torn medial meniscus does not deviate materially from reasonable compensation (cf. Garcia v Queens Surface Corp., 271 AD2d 277, 278 [2000]; Myers v Schaffer Grocery Corp., 281 AD2d 156 [2001]; Lanpont v Savvas Cab Corp., 244 AD2d 208 [1997]). Likewise, in view of testimony that plaintiff will ultimately develop arthritis and require knee replacement surgery, the $700,000 award for future pain and suffering over a projected 32-year period is not so disproportionate to what constitutes reasonable compensation as to warrant reduction (cf. Mujica v State Univ. Constr. Fund, 275 AD2d 976 [2000]; Cruz v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 259 AD2d 432 [1999]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 385, 758 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calzado-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack