Chisholm v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chisholm v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc.

289 A.D.2d 168, 735 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12752

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 168 (Chisholm v. Madison Square Garden Center, 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

Chisholm v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc., 289 A.D.2d 168, 735 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered May 1, 2001, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the awards for past and future pain and suffering to the extent of directing a new trial on damages unless defendants stipulated to increase the award for past pain and suffering from $25,000 to $250,000 and for future pain and suffering from $0 to $150,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The awards for past and future pain and suffering were properly set aside upon a record showing that plaintiff suffered a comminuted fracture of the right elbow when he was 15 years old, which required two surgical procedures under general anesthesia over a four-year period, and involves continuing [169]*169limitation of motion and a likelihood of, inter alia, arthritis in the elbow at a relatively young age (cf., Roshwalb v Regency Mar. Corp., 182 AD2d 401, lv denied 80 NY2d 756; Martinez v Gouverneur Gardens Hous. Corp., 184 AD2d 264, 267, lv denied 80 NY2d 759). Defendants’ argument that the verdict was a compromise is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (cf., Gribbon v Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 244 AD2d 185), and we decline to review it. In any event, the claim lacks merit since it does not appear that liability was a close issue at trial (see, Figliomeni v Board of Educ., 38 NY2d 178, 182). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered May 1, 2001, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the awards for past and future pain and suffering to the extent of directing a new trial on damages unless defendants stipulated to increase the award for past pain and suffering from $25,000 to $250,000 and for future pain and suffering from $0 to $150,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The awards for past and future pain and suffering were properly set aside upon a record showing that plaintiff suffered a comminuted fracture of the right elbow when he was 15 years old, which required two surgical procedures under general anesthesia over a four-year period, and involves continuing [169]*169limitation of motion and a likelihood of, inter alia, arthritis in the elbow at a relatively young age (cf., Roshwalb v Regency Mar. Corp., 182 AD2d 401, lv denied 80 NY2d 756; Martinez v Gouverneur Gardens Hous. Corp., 184 AD2d 264, 267, lv denied 80 NY2d 759). Defendants’ argument that the verdict was a compromise is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (cf., Gribbon v Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 244 AD2d 185), and we decline to review it. In any event, the claim lacks merit since it does not appear that liability was a close issue at trial (see, Figliomeni v Board of Educ., 38 NY2d 178, 182). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 168, 735 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chisholm-v-madison-square-garden-center-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack