Harris v. Channel Master

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris v. Channel Master

59 A.D.2d 903, 399 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14103

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 903 (Harris v. Channel Master) 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

Harris v. Channel Master, 59 A.D.2d 903, 399 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered November 4, 1976, after a jury trial, (1) on the ground of inadequacy insofar as the judgment is in their favor and (2) from the portion of the judgment which is against plaintiff Gordon Blewitt. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Subdivision 3 of section 673 of the Insurance Law provides: "Where there is no right of recovery for basic economic loss, such loss may nevertheless be pleaded and proved to the extent that it is relevant to the proof of noneconomic loss.” (Emphasis supplied.) Under the circumstances of this case Trial Term did not abuse its discretion in excluding proof of plaintiffs’ basic economic loss. Furthermore, the damages awarded were not inadequate as a matter of law. We would add, however, that in future cases any ruling by the trial court as to why proof of basic economic loss is or is not relevant to proof of noneconomic loss should be stated on the record, with the reasons therefor set forth. Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Damiani and O’Connor, 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., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered November 4, 1976, after a jury trial, (1) on the ground of inadequacy insofar as the judgment is in their favor and (2) from the portion of the judgment which is against plaintiff Gordon Blewitt. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Subdivision 3 of section 673 of the Insurance Law provides: "Where there is no right of recovery for basic economic loss, such loss may nevertheless be pleaded and proved to the extent that it is relevant to the proof of noneconomic loss.” (Emphasis supplied.) Under the circumstances of this case Trial Term did not abuse its discretion in excluding proof of plaintiffs’ basic economic loss. Furthermore, the damages awarded were not inadequate as a matter of law. We would add, however, that in future cases any ruling by the trial court as to why proof of basic economic loss is or is not relevant to proof of noneconomic loss should be stated on the record, with the reasons therefor set forth. Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Damiani and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 903, 399 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-channel-master-nyappdiv-1977.