Knoch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knoch v. City of New York

137 A.D.3d 982, 26 N.Y.S.3d 714

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2016

Docket2013-10348

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 982 (Knoch 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

Knoch v. City of New York, 137 A.D.3d 982, 26 N.Y.S.3d 714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated May 20, 2013, which denied her motion for additur with respect to the jury verdict awarding damages for future pain and suffering.

*983 Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The amount of damages to be awarded to a plaintiff for personal injuries is a question for the jury, and its determination will not be disturbed unless the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Taveras v Vega, 119 AD3d 853, 854 [2014]). Prior damage awards in cases involving similar injuries are not binding upon the courts but serve to “guide and enlighten” them in determining whether a verdict constitutes reasonable compensation (Miller v Weisel, 15 AD3d 458, 459 [2005]). Consideration should also be given to other factors, including the nature and extent of the injuries (see Fryer v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 31 AD3d 604, 605 [2006]). Here, upon our consideration of the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, we find that the jury’s award for future pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be considered reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Eng, P.J., Rivera, Hall and Hinds-Radix, 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 (Silber, J.), dated May 20, 2013, which denied her motion for additur with respect to the jury verdict awarding damages for future pain and suffering.

*983 Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The amount of damages to be awarded to a plaintiff for personal injuries is a question for the jury, and its determination will not be disturbed unless the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Taveras v Vega, 119 AD3d 853, 854 [2014]). Prior damage awards in cases involving similar injuries are not binding upon the courts but serve to “guide and enlighten” them in determining whether a verdict constitutes reasonable compensation (Miller v Weisel, 15 AD3d 458, 459 [2005]). Consideration should also be given to other factors, including the nature and extent of the injuries (see Fryer v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 31 AD3d 604, 605 [2006]). Here, upon our consideration of the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, we find that the jury’s award for future pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be considered reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Eng, P.J., Rivera, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 982, 26 N.Y.S.3d 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knoch-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack