Collazo v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collazo v. State

117 A.D.3d 980, 986 N.Y.S.2d 604

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

DecidedMay 28, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 A.D.3d 980 (Collazo v. State) 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

Collazo v. State, 117 A.D.3d 980, 986 N.Y.S.2d 604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for negligence and medical malpractice, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated September 7, 2012, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded him damages in the principal sums of only $1,600 for past pain and suffering and $0 for future pain and suffering.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding damages for past pain and suffering in the principal sum of $1,600 and substituting therefor a provision awarding damages for past pain and suffering in the principal sum of $4,300; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“ Tn a nonjury case, this court has the power to weigh conflicting testimony and inferences that may be drawn from such testimony and can grant the judgment which upon the ev[981]*981idence should have been granted by the trial court’ ” (Karagiannis v New York State Thruway Auth., 187 AD2d 1009, 1010 [1992], quoting Mesick v State of New York, 118 AD2d 214, 219 [1986]). Where, as here, the record is complete, the power extends to making an appropriate award of damages (see Rivera v State of New York, 205 AD2d 602 [1994]; Karagiannis v New York State Thruway Auth., 187 AD2d at 1010).

Considering the nature of the claimant’s pain and suffering, including his mental anguish concerning his recurring seizure-like episodes accompanied by headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and difficulty breathing, with no diagnosis, and his two hospitalizations over a 43-day period, we find the award for past pain and suffering of the principal sum of $1,600 to be inadequate, and accordingly increase that award to the principal sum of $4,300.

However, the trial court properly declined to grant the claimant an award for future pain and suffering (see Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941 [1992]; Tatta v State of New York, 19 AD3d 817, 818 [2005]).

Mastro, J.E, Roman, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In a claim to recover damages for negligence and medical malpractice, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated September 7, 2012, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded him damages in the principal sums of only $1,600 for past pain and suffering and $0 for future pain and suffering.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding damages for past pain and suffering in the principal sum of $1,600 and substituting therefor a provision awarding damages for past pain and suffering in the principal sum of $4,300; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“ Tn a nonjury case, this court has the power to weigh conflicting testimony and inferences that may be drawn from such testimony and can grant the judgment which upon the ev[981]*981idence should have been granted by the trial court’ ” (Karagiannis v New York State Thruway Auth., 187 AD2d 1009, 1010 [1992], quoting Mesick v State of New York, 118 AD2d 214, 219 [1986]). Where, as here, the record is complete, the power extends to making an appropriate award of damages (see Rivera v State of New York, 205 AD2d 602 [1994]; Karagiannis v New York State Thruway Auth., 187 AD2d at 1010).

Considering the nature of the claimant’s pain and suffering, including his mental anguish concerning his recurring seizure-like episodes accompanied by headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and difficulty breathing, with no diagnosis, and his two hospitalizations over a 43-day period, we find the award for past pain and suffering of the principal sum of $1,600 to be inadequate, and accordingly increase that award to the principal sum of $4,300.

However, the trial court properly declined to grant the claimant an award for future pain and suffering (see Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941 [1992]; Tatta v State of New York, 19 AD3d 817, 818 [2005]).

Mastro, J.E, Roman, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 980, 986 N.Y.S.2d 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collazo-v-state-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack