In San Kim v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In San Kim v. New York City Transit Authority

270 A.D.2d 309, 705 N.Y.S.2d 240, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2701

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 309 (In San Kim 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

In San Kim v. New York City Transit Authority, 270 A.D.2d 309, 705 N.Y.S.2d 240, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered September 2, 1998, as, upon a jury verdict, awarded him only $10,000 for future pain and suffering and no compensation for future lost earnings.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The jury was free to accept the testimony of the defendants’ witnesses, and reject that of the plaintiff’s witnesses (see, Ventriglio v Active Airport Serv., 234 AD2d 451, 453). Moreover, the award did not deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation under the circumstances [310]*310(see, CPLR 5501 [c]; In Soo Kim v Jung Woo Constr. Corp., 264 AD2d 467). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered September 2, 1998, as, upon a jury verdict, awarded him only $10,000 for future pain and suffering and no compensation for future lost earnings.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The jury was free to accept the testimony of the defendants’ witnesses, and reject that of the plaintiff’s witnesses (see, Ventriglio v Active Airport Serv., 234 AD2d 451, 453). Moreover, the award did not deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation under the circumstances [310]*310(see, CPLR 5501 [c]; In Soo Kim v Jung Woo Constr. Corp., 264 AD2d 467). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 309, 705 N.Y.S.2d 240, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-san-kim-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack