Grassi v. Carolina Barbeque, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grassi v. Carolina Barbeque, Inc.

254 A.D.2d 38, 678 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10130

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 38 (Grassi v. Carolina Barbeque, Inc.) 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

Grassi v. Carolina Barbeque, Inc., 254 A.D.2d 38, 678 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered December 10, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict reduced pursuant to plaintiffs stipulation, awarded plaintiff damages structured pursuant to CPLR 5041 (e), unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 14, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict except to the extent of ordering a new trial unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction of the award for future lost earnings from $412,500 to $160,600 and a reduction of the award for future pain and suffering from $700,000 to $510,000, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Exclusion of evidence concededly not in compliance with the notice requirement of 22 NYCRR 202.17 was not an improvident exercise of the trial court’s discretion (see, McClain v Lockport Mem. Hosp., 236 AD2d 864, 865, lv denied 89 NY2d 817), and exclusion of conceded hearsay was appropriate, despite CPLR 4532-a, since defendant admittedly did not afford plaintiff the required notice (see, Adams v Romero, 227 AD2d 292, 293). The trial court appropriately found the issue of security in defendant’s bar to warrant the receipt of expert testimony (see, e.g., Ricard v Roseland Amusement & Dev. Corp., 215 AD2d 240, 241, appeal dismissed 86 NY2d 837, lv denied 87 NY2d 805), and appropriately declined to charge on implied assumption of the risk, since the evidence showed that plaintiff had not engaged in the conduct at issue fully cognizant of the risk it entailed (cf., Fernandez v City of New York, 247 AD2d 212). The awards for future lost income and future pain and suffering, as reduced on motion by the trial court, are appropriate. We have considered defendant-appellant’s remaining arguments and those made by plaintiff in favor of additur, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered December 10, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict reduced pursuant to plaintiffs stipulation, awarded plaintiff damages structured pursuant to CPLR 5041 (e), unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 14, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict except to the extent of ordering a new trial unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction of the award for future lost earnings from $412,500 to $160,600 and a reduction of the award for future pain and suffering from $700,000 to $510,000, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Exclusion of evidence concededly not in compliance with the notice requirement of 22 NYCRR 202.17 was not an improvident exercise of the trial court’s discretion (see, McClain v Lockport Mem. Hosp., 236 AD2d 864, 865, lv denied 89 NY2d 817), and exclusion of conceded hearsay was appropriate, despite CPLR 4532-a, since defendant admittedly did not afford plaintiff the required notice (see, Adams v Romero, 227 AD2d 292, 293). The trial court appropriately found the issue of security in defendant’s bar to warrant the receipt of expert testimony (see, e.g., Ricard v Roseland Amusement & Dev. Corp., 215 AD2d 240, 241, appeal dismissed 86 NY2d 837, lv denied 87 NY2d 805), and appropriately declined to charge on implied assumption of the risk, since the evidence showed that plaintiff had not engaged in the conduct at issue fully cognizant of the risk it entailed (cf., Fernandez v City of New York, 247 AD2d 212). The awards for future lost income and future pain and suffering, as reduced on motion by the trial court, are appropriate. We have considered defendant-appellant’s remaining arguments and those made by plaintiff in favor of additur, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 38, 678 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grassi-v-carolina-barbeque-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack