Hopkins v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hopkins v. New York City Transit Authority

82 A.D.3d 446, 917 N.Y.2d 866

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 446 (Hopkins v. New York City 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

Hopkins v. New York City Transit Authority, 82 A.D.3d 446, 917 N.Y.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[447]*447The 22-year-old plaintiff suffered a trimalleolar fracture of her right ankle when she tripped and fell on a section of cracked and raised concrete in a subway station. She has endured two painful surgeries, one open insertion to repair her broken bones by means of a metal plate and screws, and a second to remove the surgical hardware. She can no longer run or participate in sports and continues to have pain. Early signs of arthritis, which is likely to further restrict her motion and activities, have been detected in her ankle, which may require an additional surgery. Under these circumstances, the amounts awarded for past and future pain and suffering do not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation (see e.g. Colon v New York Eye Surgery Assoc., P.C., 77 AD3d 597 [2010]; Ruiz v Hart Elm Corp., 44 AD3d 842 [2007]; Rydell v Pan Am. Equities, 262 AD2d 213 [1999]; Po Yee So v Wing Tat Realty, 259 AD2d 373 [1999]; CPLR 5501 [c]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

[447]*447The 22-year-old plaintiff suffered a trimalleolar fracture of her right ankle when she tripped and fell on a section of cracked and raised concrete in a subway station. She has endured two painful surgeries, one open insertion to repair her broken bones by means of a metal plate and screws, and a second to remove the surgical hardware. She can no longer run or participate in sports and continues to have pain. Early signs of arthritis, which is likely to further restrict her motion and activities, have been detected in her ankle, which may require an additional surgery. Under these circumstances, the amounts awarded for past and future pain and suffering do not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation (see e.g. Colon v New York Eye Surgery Assoc., P.C., 77 AD3d 597 [2010]; Ruiz v Hart Elm Corp., 44 AD3d 842 [2007]; Rydell v Pan Am. Equities, 262 AD2d 213 [1999]; Po Yee So v Wing Tat Realty, 259 AD2d 373 [1999]; CPLR 5501 [c]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 446, 917 N.Y.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack