In Soo Kim v. Jung Woo Construction Corp.

264 A.D.2d 467, 693 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8858
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 23, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 467 (In Soo Kim v. Jung Woo Construction Corp.) 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 Soo Kim v. Jung Woo Construction Corp., 264 A.D.2d 467, 693 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

In an 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, Queens County (Ritzes, J.), dated January 21, 1998, as, upon a jury verdict awarding him damages for past pain and suffering in the amount of $80,000, past lost earnings of $75,000, and past medical expenses of $25,000, but failing to award him damages for future pain and suffering, future lost earnings, and future medical expenses, is in his favor in the principal sum of only $180,000.

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

[468]*468It is well settled that the amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is primarily a question of fact for the jury (see, Gaetan v New York City Tr. Auth., 213 AD2d 510; Schare v Welsbach Elec. Corp., 138 AD2d 477, 478), and its determination will not be disturbed unless the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Walsh v Kings Plaza Replacement Serv., 239 AD2d 408; Ramos v Ramos, 234 AD2d 439, 440). We find that the jury verdict in this case cannot be said to deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Goady v. Utopia Home Care Agency
305 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Ness v. New York City Transit Authority
288 A.D.2d 374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Yasuna v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc.
282 A.D.2d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Laskowsky v. Sullivan
272 A.D.2d 299 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In San Kim v. New York City Transit Authority
270 A.D.2d 309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 A.D.2d 467, 693 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-soo-kim-v-jung-woo-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1999.