Fuller-Mosley v. Union Theological Seminary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuller-Mosley v. Union Theological Seminary

35 A.D.3d 286, 827 N.Y.S.2d 864

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 286 (Fuller-Mosley v. Union Theological Seminary) 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

Fuller-Mosley v. Union Theological Seminary, 35 A.D.3d 286, 827 N.Y.S.2d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W Silbermann, J.; Diane A. Lebedeff, J., at jury trial), entered October 13, 2005, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, apportioning liability for plaintiffs injury 70% against defendant Scorcia & Diana and awarding damages of $750,000 for past pain and suffering, $4 million for future pain and suffering, $260,000 for past lost wages and $860,000 for future lost wages, all prior to apportionment, unanimously modified, on the facts, the pain and suffering awards vacated, and the matter remanded for new a trial solely on the issue of such damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, unless plaintiff, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, stipulates to reduce the awards for past and future pain and suffering to $600,000 and $1,400,000, respectively, prior to apportionment, and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith.

The jury’s verdict on liability and apportionment against Scorcia & Diana is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004] ). The award for future lost wages is supported by proof of reasonable certainty (see Behrens v Metropolitan Opera Assn., Inc., 18 AD3d 47, 50 [2005]). However, the awards for past and future pain and suffering deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances to the extent indicated (see CPLR 5501 [c]; see also Sow v Arias, 21 AD3d 317 [2005] , lv denied 5 NY3d 716 [2005]; Diaz v West 197th St. Realty Corp., 290 AD2d 310 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 603 [2002]; Gromelski v U-Haul Co. of Metro N.Y., 288 AD2d 27 [2001] ; cf. Amonbea v Perry Beverage Distribs., 294 AD2d 285 [2002] ; Valentin v City of New York, 293 AD2d 313 [2002]; Miranda v New Dimension Realty Co., 278 AD2d 137 [2000]).

[287]*287We have considered Scorcia & Diana’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W Silbermann, J.; Diane A. Lebedeff, J., at jury trial), entered October 13, 2005, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, apportioning liability for plaintiffs injury 70% against defendant Scorcia & Diana and awarding damages of $750,000 for past pain and suffering, $4 million for future pain and suffering, $260,000 for past lost wages and $860,000 for future lost wages, all prior to apportionment, unanimously modified, on the facts, the pain and suffering awards vacated, and the matter remanded for new a trial solely on the issue of such damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, unless plaintiff, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, stipulates to reduce the awards for past and future pain and suffering to $600,000 and $1,400,000, respectively, prior to apportionment, and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith.

The jury’s verdict on liability and apportionment against Scorcia & Diana is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004] ). The award for future lost wages is supported by proof of reasonable certainty (see Behrens v Metropolitan Opera Assn., Inc., 18 AD3d 47, 50 [2005]). However, the awards for past and future pain and suffering deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances to the extent indicated (see CPLR 5501 [c]; see also Sow v Arias, 21 AD3d 317 [2005] , lv denied 5 NY3d 716 [2005]; Diaz v West 197th St. Realty Corp., 290 AD2d 310 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 603 [2002]; Gromelski v U-Haul Co. of Metro N.Y., 288 AD2d 27 [2001] ; cf. Amonbea v Perry Beverage Distribs., 294 AD2d 285 [2002] ; Valentin v City of New York, 293 AD2d 313 [2002]; Miranda v New Dimension Realty Co., 278 AD2d 137 [2000]).

[287]*287We have considered Scorcia & Diana’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 286, 827 N.Y.S.2d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-mosley-v-union-theological-seminary-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack