Gregory v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gregory v. State

195 A.D.2d 1030, 601 N.Y.S.2d 892

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

DecidedJuly 16, 1993

DocketAppeal No. 1; Claim No. 73278

StatusPublished

This text of 195 A.D.2d 1030 (Gregory v. State) 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

Gregory v. State, 195 A.D.2d 1030, 601 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: It was within the province of the trial court, as the finder of facts, to find that claimant had not met his burden of proof that he had sustained permanent injuries. The only evidence that claimant had sustained permanent injuries was the testimony of claimant’s father, an interested witness, whose testimony the court was entitled to disbelieve. Moreover, the court had no way to assess the amount of damages to be awarded for scarring, testified to by the father, inasmuch as claimant was not produced for viewing by the court and no recent photographs were introduced showing the purported scarring.

The award for claimant’s pain and suffering does not "deviate * * * materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501 [c]). (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, Quigley, J.—Negligence.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Boomer and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: It was within the province of the trial court, as the finder of facts, to find that claimant had not met his burden of proof that he had sustained permanent injuries. The only evidence that claimant had sustained permanent injuries was the testimony of claimant’s father, an interested witness, whose testimony the court was entitled to disbelieve. Moreover, the court had no way to assess the amount of damages to be awarded for scarring, testified to by the father, inasmuch as claimant was not produced for viewing by the court and no recent photographs were introduced showing the purported scarring.

The award for claimant’s pain and suffering does not "deviate * * * materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501 [c]). (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, Quigley, J.—Negligence.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Boomer and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 1030, 601 N.Y.S.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-v-state-nyappdiv-1993.