Irby v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Irby v. City of New York

184 A.D.2d 622, 584 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8058

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

DecidedJune 15, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 622 (Irby v. City of New York) 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

Irby v. City of New York, 184 A.D.2d 622, 584 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated August 17, 1990, which set aside a jury’s verdict on damages in the total amount of $500,000, and directed a new trial thereon unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict to the total amount of $300,000, which, upon the jury’s apportionment of fault in the [623]*623happening of the accident of 65% against the defendant and 35% against the plaintiff, resulted in a recovery for the plaintiff in the principal sum of $195,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The 70-year-old plaintiff suffered a fractured ankle when he tripped and fell on a broken sidewalk. We agree with the Supreme Court that the jury verdict was excessive to the extent indicated (see, Perrone v City of New York, 140 AD2d 594; see also, Graham v Murphy, 135 AD2d 326). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated August 17, 1990, which set aside a jury’s verdict on damages in the total amount of $500,000, and directed a new trial thereon unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict to the total amount of $300,000, which, upon the jury’s apportionment of fault in the [623]*623happening of the accident of 65% against the defendant and 35% against the plaintiff, resulted in a recovery for the plaintiff in the principal sum of $195,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The 70-year-old plaintiff suffered a fractured ankle when he tripped and fell on a broken sidewalk. We agree with the Supreme Court that the jury verdict was excessive to the extent indicated (see, Perrone v City of New York, 140 AD2d 594; see also, Graham v Murphy, 135 AD2d 326). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 622, 584 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irby-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack