Gurecki v. Gurecki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gurecki v. Gurecki

92 A.D.2d 606, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16865

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 1983·Published

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover daniages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Collins, J.), dated December 28, 1981, which was in the principal sum of only $13,500, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and new trial granted as to damages only. The trial court erred in refusing to permit plaintiffs’ expert to testify as to the permanency of the infant’s psychological injuries. The bill of particulars adequately set forth these injuries (see Damon Runyon Mem. Fund for Cancer Research v Service Contr. Co., 34 AD2d 904). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Thompson and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover daniages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Collins, J.), dated December 28, 1981, which was in the principal sum of only $13,500, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and new trial granted as to damages only. The trial court erred in refusing to permit plaintiffs’ expert to testify as to the permanency of the infant’s psychological injuries. The bill of particulars adequately set forth these injuries (see Damon Runyon Mem. Fund for Cancer Research v Service Contr. Co., 34 AD2d 904). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Thompson and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Gurecki v. Gurecki, 92 A.D.2d 606, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

92 A.D.2d 606 (Gurecki v. Gurecki) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related