Henson v. Stefunek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henson v. Stefunek

129 A.D.2d 772, 514 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45466

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

DecidedApril 27, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 A.D.2d 772 (Henson v. Stefunek) 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

Henson v. Stefunek, 129 A.D.2d 772, 514 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), entered November 13, 1985, as, upon a jury verdict in his favor, awarded him the principal sum of only $2,500.

Ordered, that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion with costs, and a new trial is granted on the issue of damages only, unless within 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, the defendants third-party plaintiffs shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the. Supreme Court, Putnam County, a written stipulation consenting to increase the amount of the verdict in favor of the plaintiff to $17,500, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly. In the event that the defendants third-party plaintiffs so stipulate, then the judgment, as so increased and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As a result of having been in an automobile accident the 17-year-old plaintiff sustained, inter alia, an injury to his left knee, which, over the next eight months, caused him increasingly severe bouts of pain and disability. He then underwent a lengthy and "very painful” diagnostic procedure, an arthrogram, which confirmed that he had suffered a tear of the medial meniscus of the left leg, a finding conceded by the defendants. After a course of conservative treatment proved fruitless, the plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery, which resulted in complications and necessitated yet a second hospitalization.

While the evidence regarding the permanency of the injuries was conflicting, we conclude that in light of the pain and suffering endured by the plaintiff, the award was inadequate to the extent indicated. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, 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, the plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), entered November 13, 1985, as, upon a jury verdict in his favor, awarded him the principal sum of only $2,500.

Ordered, that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion with costs, and a new trial is granted on the issue of damages only, unless within 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, the defendants third-party plaintiffs shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the. Supreme Court, Putnam County, a written stipulation consenting to increase the amount of the verdict in favor of the plaintiff to $17,500, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly. In the event that the defendants third-party plaintiffs so stipulate, then the judgment, as so increased and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As a result of having been in an automobile accident the 17-year-old plaintiff sustained, inter alia, an injury to his left knee, which, over the next eight months, caused him increasingly severe bouts of pain and disability. He then underwent a lengthy and "very painful” diagnostic procedure, an arthrogram, which confirmed that he had suffered a tear of the medial meniscus of the left leg, a finding conceded by the defendants. After a course of conservative treatment proved fruitless, the plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery, which resulted in complications and necessitated yet a second hospitalization.

While the evidence regarding the permanency of the injuries was conflicting, we conclude that in light of the pain and suffering endured by the plaintiff, the award was inadequate to the extent indicated. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.2d 772, 514 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henson-v-stefunek-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack