Filipinas v. Action Auto Leasing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Filipinas v. Action Auto Leasing

48 A.D.3d 333, 851 N.Y.S.2d 550

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 48 A.D.3d 333 (Filipinas v. Action Auto Leasing) 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

Filipinas v. Action Auto Leasing, 48 A.D.3d 333, 851 N.Y.S.2d 550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered May 17, 2007, which, in this wrongful death action, granted defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and directed a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction in the award for conscious pain and suffering from $750,000, to $350,000, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, the motion denied and the verdict reinstated.

The trial evidence established that within an hour of the accident, plaintiff’s decedent was heavily medicated and/or sedated, justifying the trial court’s reasoning that the decedent endured pain and suffering for a limited amount of time. However, contrary to the court’s determination, the award for conscious pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation, where, as a result of being struck in the head by the side mirror of defendants’ van, plaintiff’s decedent sustained fractures of the left orbit and right temporal bone, a subdural hematoma and subarachnoid hemorrhaging (see Twersky v Busche, 37 AD3d 704 [2007]; Ramos v La Montana Moving & Stor., 247 AD2d 333 [1998]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ. (See 2007 NY Slip Op 31245(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered May 17, 2007, which, in this wrongful death action, granted defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and directed a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction in the award for conscious pain and suffering from $750,000, to $350,000, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, the motion denied and the verdict reinstated.

The trial evidence established that within an hour of the accident, plaintiff’s decedent was heavily medicated and/or sedated, justifying the trial court’s reasoning that the decedent endured pain and suffering for a limited amount of time. However, contrary to the court’s determination, the award for conscious pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation, where, as a result of being struck in the head by the side mirror of defendants’ van, plaintiff’s decedent sustained fractures of the left orbit and right temporal bone, a subdural hematoma and subarachnoid hemorrhaging (see Twersky v Busche, 37 AD3d 704 [2007]; Ramos v La Montana Moving & Stor., 247 AD2d 333 [1998]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ. (See 2007 NY Slip Op 31245(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 333, 851 N.Y.S.2d 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/filipinas-v-action-auto-leasing-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack