In Soo Kim v. Jung Woo Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 23, 1999·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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] It 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

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] It 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.

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).

Pincite

264 A.D.2d 467 (In Soo Kim v. Jung Woo Construction Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related