Kamin v. City of New York

297 A.D.2d 573, 747 N.Y.2d 166, 747 N.Y.S.2d 166, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8757
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 24, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[574] While plaintiff clearly suffers from chronic and painful conditions for which she had surgery and other treatment after the subject elevator accident, ample evidence shows that such conditions are due to a preexisting congenital and degenerative disease in plaintiffs spine. A fair interpretation of the conflicting evidence on causation supports the jury’s apparent finding that while the accident caused plaintiff some pain and suffering, it did not permanently aggravate her preexisting conditions or result in any serious new injuries (cf Grassi v Ulrich, 87 NY2d 954). Concur — Williams, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

Kamin v. City of New York, 297 A.D.2d 573, 747 N.Y.2d 166, 747 N.Y.S.2d 166, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

297 A.D.2d 573 (Kamin v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brandwein v. New York City Transit Authority
14 A.D.3d 396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)