Hernandez v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

101 A.D.3d 1083, 956 N.Y.2d 547

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 1083 (Hernandez v. Metropolitan Transit Authority) 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. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 101 A.D.3d 1083, 956 N.Y.2d 547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[1084]*1084The plaintiff was injured when she was struck by a piece of construction debris that fell from an elevated subway track. The plaintiff sustained an injury to her left shoulder as a result of that incident. After a jury trial on the issue of damages only, the jury awarded damages for past pain and suffering in the principal sum of $250,000. The jury did not award any damages for future pain and suffering.

Under the circumstances of this case, the award of damages deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation, to the extent indicated herein (see CPLR 5501 [c]; see also Perone v City of New York, 86 AD3d 600, 601 [2011]; Miller v Tacopina, 34 AD3d 254, 255 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

[1084]*1084The plaintiff was injured when she was struck by a piece of construction debris that fell from an elevated subway track. The plaintiff sustained an injury to her left shoulder as a result of that incident. After a jury trial on the issue of damages only, the jury awarded damages for past pain and suffering in the principal sum of $250,000. The jury did not award any damages for future pain and suffering.

Under the circumstances of this case, the award of damages deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation, to the extent indicated herein (see CPLR 5501 [c]; see also Perone v City of New York, 86 AD3d 600, 601 [2011]; Miller v Tacopina, 34 AD3d 254, 255 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 1083, 956 N.Y.2d 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-metropolitan-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack