Cenite v. Pyramid Floor Covering, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cenite v. Pyramid Floor Covering, Inc.

104 A.D.3d 479, 960 N.Y.S.2d 310

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 479 (Cenite v. Pyramid Floor Covering, Inc.) 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

Cenite v. Pyramid Floor Covering, Inc., 104 A.D.3d 479, 960 N.Y.S.2d 310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered on or about February 3, 2012, which, in this personal injury action, denied defendant’s motion to set aside the jury award in the amount of $180,000 for plaintiffs past lost earnings, and granted plaintiffs motion for an order entering judgment in accordance with the jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although the lost earnings award was based solely on plaintiffs testimony, without supporting documentation, defendant did not challenge the testimony by using plaintiffs employment records or any other evidence (see Kane v Coundorous, 11 AD3d 304, 305 [1st Dept 2004]). The evidence of plaintiffs earnings immediately preceding his accident was sufficient to support the jury’s award for past lost earnings (id.). Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered on or about February 3, 2012, which, in this personal injury action, denied defendant’s motion to set aside the jury award in the amount of $180,000 for plaintiffs past lost earnings, and granted plaintiffs motion for an order entering judgment in accordance with the jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although the lost earnings award was based solely on plaintiffs testimony, without supporting documentation, defendant did not challenge the testimony by using plaintiffs employment records or any other evidence (see Kane v Coundorous, 11 AD3d 304, 305 [1st Dept 2004]). The evidence of plaintiffs earnings immediately preceding his accident was sufficient to support the jury’s award for past lost earnings (id.). Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 479, 960 N.Y.S.2d 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cenite-v-pyramid-floor-covering-inc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack