Garcia v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. New York City Housing Authority

302 A.D.2d 250, 754 N.Y.S.2d 535, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1464

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 250 (Garcia v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Garcia v. New York City Housing Authority, 302 A.D.2d 250, 754 N.Y.S.2d 535, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered March 23, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, on the trial court’s initiative, vacated that part of the jury’s verdict as awarded plaintiff $27,300 for past loss of earnings and $50,000 for future lost earnings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs testimony, which did not detail the compensation she received at a number of different short-term jobs prior to her accident, was insufficient to establish her past and future lost earnings with any reasonable degree of certainty (see Gomez v City of New York, 260 AD2d 598, 599; Bacigalupo v Healthshield, Inc., 231 AD2d 538, 539; Coakley v State of New York, 225 AD2d 477, 478). While plaintiff argues that her loss of earnings should simply be based on the minimum wage, there is no evidence of the number of hours she typically worked before the injury, how long the injury prevented her [251]*251from working, and what the minimum wage was over the period of her incapacitation. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Williams and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered March 23, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, on the trial court’s initiative, vacated that part of the jury’s verdict as awarded plaintiff $27,300 for past loss of earnings and $50,000 for future lost earnings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs testimony, which did not detail the compensation she received at a number of different short-term jobs prior to her accident, was insufficient to establish her past and future lost earnings with any reasonable degree of certainty (see Gomez v City of New York, 260 AD2d 598, 599; Bacigalupo v Healthshield, Inc., 231 AD2d 538, 539; Coakley v State of New York, 225 AD2d 477, 478). While plaintiff argues that her loss of earnings should simply be based on the minimum wage, there is no evidence of the number of hours she typically worked before the injury, how long the injury prevented her [251]*251from working, and what the minimum wage was over the period of her incapacitation. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Williams and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 250, 754 N.Y.S.2d 535, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack