Elescano v. Eighth-19th Co.

17 A.D.3d 250, 794 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4228
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 21, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 250 (Elescano v. Eighth-19th Co.) 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
Elescano v. Eighth-19th Co., 17 A.D.3d 250, 794 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J., and a jury), entered April 5, 2004, in an action by a construction worker for personal injuries, awarding, inter alia, $100,000 for past pain and suffering and, insofar as appealed from, $50,000 for future pain and suffering over 37 years, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the award for future pain and suffering and direct a new trial on that issue only, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, unless third-party [251]*251defendant-respondent, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, stipulates to increase the award for future pain and suffering to $200,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith.

Plaintiff suffered a ruptured rotator cuff that required physical therapy three times a week for about a year, then surgery, then six more months of physical therapy, and then home exercise of 30 to 40 minutes a day continuing through the trial. Plaintiffs treating physician stated that the injury will cause plaintiff permanent and worsening chronic pain; defendant’s expert acknowledged that plaintiff has a permanent partial disability with intermittent symptoms that can be painful with extreme motions. Under the circumstances, the award for future pain and suffering deviates materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances (cf. Murakami v Machinist, 3 AD3d 336 [2004]), and we accordingly modify as above indicated. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Related

Gontarek v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2021 NY Slip Op 05081 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Jones v. New York Presbyt. Hosp.
2018 NY Slip Op 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Morales v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
106 A.D.3d 459 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Konfidan v. FF Taxi, Inc.
95 A.D.3d 471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Beh v. Jim Willis & Sons Builders, Inc.
28 A.D.3d 1227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 A.D.3d 250, 794 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elescano-v-eighth-19th-co-nyappdiv-2005.