Coleman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coleman v. City of New York

87 A.D.3d 401, 928 N.Y.2d 23

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

DecidedAugust 4, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 87 A.D.3d 401 (Coleman v. City of New York) 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

Coleman v. City of New York, 87 A.D.3d 401, 928 N.Y.2d 23 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff failed to prove future lost earnings with reasonable certainty (see DeVirgilio v Feller Precision Stage Lifts, Inc., 47 AD3d 522 [2008]; Harris v City of New York, 2 AD3d 782, 783-784 [2003], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 758 [2004]). The trial evidence was insufficient to support the assumption underlying the award, i.e., that plaintiff would be unable to perform any work for the remainder of his life.

The award for future medical costs was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of plaintiffs treating physician (Crooms v Sauer Bros. Inc., 48 AD3d 380, 382 [2008]).

We find that the awards for past and future pain and suffer[402]*402ing deviate to the extent indicated from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Urbina v 26 Ct. St. Assoc., LLC, 46 AD3d 268, 275-276 [2007]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Plaintiff failed to prove future lost earnings with reasonable certainty (see DeVirgilio v Feller Precision Stage Lifts, Inc., 47 AD3d 522 [2008]; Harris v City of New York, 2 AD3d 782, 783-784 [2003], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 758 [2004]). The trial evidence was insufficient to support the assumption underlying the award, i.e., that plaintiff would be unable to perform any work for the remainder of his life.

The award for future medical costs was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of plaintiffs treating physician (Crooms v Sauer Bros. Inc., 48 AD3d 380, 382 [2008]).

We find that the awards for past and future pain and suffer[402]*402ing deviate to the extent indicated from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Urbina v 26 Ct. St. Assoc., LLC, 46 AD3d 268, 275-276 [2007]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 401, 928 N.Y.2d 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack