Hernandez v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

2016 NY Slip Op 7602, 144 A.D.3d 501, 40 N.Y.S.3d 764

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2016

Docket2207 301327/09

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7602 (Hernandez v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 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

Hernandez v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 7602, 144 A.D.3d 501, 40 N.Y.S.3d 764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered September 24, 2015, which granted defendant Danella Construction of NY, Inc.’s motion to reduce the damages portion of the verdict and order a new trial of damages unless plaintiff stipulated to accept the reduced damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury’s award for pain and suffering deviated materially from reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by plaintiff (CPLR 5501 [c]). The award for future medical expenses was not supported by the trial evidence (see e.g. Hyatt v Metro-North Commuter R.R., 16 AD3d 218, 219 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered September 24, 2015, which granted defendant Danella Construction of NY, Inc.’s motion to reduce the damages portion of the verdict and order a new trial of damages unless plaintiff stipulated to accept the reduced damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury’s award for pain and suffering deviated materially from reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by plaintiff (CPLR 5501 [c]). The award for future medical expenses was not supported by the trial evidence (see e.g. Hyatt v Metro-North Commuter R.R., 16 AD3d 218, 219 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7602, 144 A.D.3d 501, 40 N.Y.S.3d 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack