Karamvelil v. Fishman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karamvelil v. Fishman

248 A.D.2d 679, 670 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3492

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 679 (Karamvelil v. Fishman) 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

Karamvelil v. Fishman, 248 A.D.2d 679, 670 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), entered January 7, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the total amount of $305,053.11.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the jury properly concluded that the daily activities of the plaintiff Mariamma Varughese Karamvelil were substantially curtailed for more than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident which caused her injuries, thereby establishing “serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Walsh v Kings Plaza Replacement Serv., 239 AD2d 408; Kim v Cohen, 208 AD2d 807, 808; Gleissner v LoPresti, 135 AD2d 494, 495).

Further, contrary to the defendants’ contention, considering the nature and consequence of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the award of damages did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, Brown v Stark, 205 AD2d 725; Orris v West, 189 AD2d 866).

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit.

Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), entered January 7, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the total amount of $305,053.11.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the jury properly concluded that the daily activities of the plaintiff Mariamma Varughese Karamvelil were substantially curtailed for more than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident which caused her injuries, thereby establishing “serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955; Walsh v Kings Plaza Replacement Serv., 239 AD2d 408; Kim v Cohen, 208 AD2d 807, 808; Gleissner v LoPresti, 135 AD2d 494, 495).

Further, contrary to the defendants’ contention, considering the nature and consequence of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the award of damages did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, Brown v Stark, 205 AD2d 725; Orris v West, 189 AD2d 866).

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit.

Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 679, 670 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karamvelil-v-fishman-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack