Davis v. Schirck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Schirck

267 A.D.2d 1058, 700 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13856

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 1058 (Davis v. Schirck) 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

Davis v. Schirck, 267 A.D.2d 1058, 700 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly set aside as against the weight of the evidence the verdict awarding plaintiffs $10,000 for the past pain and suffering of Kenneth R. Davis (plaintiff) and $2,000 for his wife’s past loss of his services and no damages for future pain and suffering or for future loss of services. The court granted a new trial on damages unless defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs an additional $10,000. The proof of permanency with respect to the injury to plaintiff’s knee was uncontroverted. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, we conclude that the failure to award damages for future pain and suffering deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Kriesel v May Dept. Stores Co., 261 AD2d 837). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Polito, J. — Set Aside Verdict.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly set aside as against the weight of the evidence the verdict awarding plaintiffs $10,000 for the past pain and suffering of Kenneth R. Davis (plaintiff) and $2,000 for his wife’s past loss of his services and no damages for future pain and suffering or for future loss of services. The court granted a new trial on damages unless defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs an additional $10,000. The proof of permanency with respect to the injury to plaintiff’s knee was uncontroverted. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, we conclude that the failure to award damages for future pain and suffering deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Kriesel v May Dept. Stores Co., 261 AD2d 837). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Polito, J. — Set Aside Verdict.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 1058, 700 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-schirck-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack