Chase v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chase v. New York City Transit Authority

121 A.D.2d 425, 503 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58390

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

DecidedJune 9, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 425 (Chase 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

Chase v. New York City Transit Authority, 121 A.D.2d 425, 503 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), dated December 13, 1984, which is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it, upon a jury verdict, in the principal sum of $300,000 on the cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death and $50,000 on the cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering.

Judgment modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by reversing so much of the judgment as awarded damages for conscious pain and suffering, unless within 20 days after service upon the plaintiffs of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry, they shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages with respect to conscious pain and suffering to the principal sum of $25,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof awarding preverdict interest on the award of damages for conscious pain and suffering, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiffs interest thereon from December 5, 1984, the date of the verdict. In the event the plaintiffs stipulate to the reduction of damages for conscious pain and suffering, then the judgment in their favor, as so reduced and amended, and as so modified by deleting the provision thereof awarding preverdict interest on the award of [426]*426damages for conscious pain and suffering, is affirmed, with costs payable to the plaintiffs.

The verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the cause of action for damages for conscious pain and suffering was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Further, as the plaintiffs concede, the judgment appealed from erroneously provides for preverdict interest on the award of damages for conscious pain and suffering (see, Raman v Carborundum Co., 31 AD2d 552, 553). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, 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 wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), dated December 13, 1984, which is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it, upon a jury verdict, in the principal sum of $300,000 on the cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death and $50,000 on the cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering.

Judgment modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by reversing so much of the judgment as awarded damages for conscious pain and suffering, unless within 20 days after service upon the plaintiffs of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry, they shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages with respect to conscious pain and suffering to the principal sum of $25,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof awarding preverdict interest on the award of damages for conscious pain and suffering, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiffs interest thereon from December 5, 1984, the date of the verdict. In the event the plaintiffs stipulate to the reduction of damages for conscious pain and suffering, then the judgment in their favor, as so reduced and amended, and as so modified by deleting the provision thereof awarding preverdict interest on the award of [426]*426damages for conscious pain and suffering, is affirmed, with costs payable to the plaintiffs.

The verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the cause of action for damages for conscious pain and suffering was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Further, as the plaintiffs concede, the judgment appealed from erroneously provides for preverdict interest on the award of damages for conscious pain and suffering (see, Raman v Carborundum Co., 31 AD2d 552, 553). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 425, 503 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack