Good v. Mantaibano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Good v. Mantaibano

50 A.D.2d 885, 377 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11779

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 885 (Good v. Mantaibano) 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

Good v. Mantaibano, 50 A.D.2d 885, 377 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County, entered January 29, 1975, in favor of plaintiffs, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, without costs. There was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the jury as to the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs. The credible evidence establishes that the injury to plaintiff William Good’s arm was severe and is permanent in nature. As to the award of $20,000 to the plaintiff wife for loss of services, the record on this appeal establishes that she will have to assume greater responsibility for the normal household duties heretofore performed by her husband. To warrant interference with a jury’s assessment of damages, the excessiveness or inadequacy of the award must be such as to shock the conscience of the court (see Reich v Mater Serv. Co., 39 AD2d 737). Upon the facts before us this test has not been satisfied. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Margett and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County, entered January 29, 1975, in favor of plaintiffs, upon a jury verdict. Judgment affirmed, without costs. There was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the jury as to the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs. The credible evidence establishes that the injury to plaintiff William Good’s arm was severe and is permanent in nature. As to the award of $20,000 to the plaintiff wife for loss of services, the record on this appeal establishes that she will have to assume greater responsibility for the normal household duties heretofore performed by her husband. To warrant interference with a jury’s assessment of damages, the excessiveness or inadequacy of the award must be such as to shock the conscience of the court (see Reich v Mater Serv. Co., 39 AD2d 737). Upon the facts before us this test has not been satisfied. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Margett and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 885, 377 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/good-v-mantaibano-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack