Krueger v. Frisenda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krueger v. Frisenda

218 A.D.2d 685, 630 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8710

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

DecidedAugust 14, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 218 A.D.2d 685 (Krueger v. Frisenda) 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

Krueger v. Frisenda, 218 A.D.2d 685, 630 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for [686]*686personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated May 14, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $1,750,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s verdict did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation for the injuries that the plaintiff suffered (see, Rivera v City of New York, 160 AD2d 985; O’Connor v Graziosi, 131 AD2d 553). The evidence in this case establishes that because of the defendant’s malpractice in tearing the plaintiff’s cecum, the plaintiff had to have 12 operations; she had to wear an ostomy bag and a mucous fistula bag for several months; she had a Hickman catheter inserted in her collarbone; she had a gastrostomy; she had a portion of her bowel removed; and she had a continuous infection for several months. Furthermore, as a result of the operations, the plaintiff has extensive scarring; she has no muscles in her abdomen; she has a hernia; and she must always wear a binder.

We find no error in the admission into evidence of a photograph of the plaintiff’s abdomen since it was relevant to the jury’s assessment of the plaintiff’s pain and suffering (see, Gallo v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 112 AD2d 345).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Joy, Krausman and Florio, 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 [686]*686personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated May 14, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $1,750,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s verdict did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation for the injuries that the plaintiff suffered (see, Rivera v City of New York, 160 AD2d 985; O’Connor v Graziosi, 131 AD2d 553). The evidence in this case establishes that because of the defendant’s malpractice in tearing the plaintiff’s cecum, the plaintiff had to have 12 operations; she had to wear an ostomy bag and a mucous fistula bag for several months; she had a Hickman catheter inserted in her collarbone; she had a gastrostomy; she had a portion of her bowel removed; and she had a continuous infection for several months. Furthermore, as a result of the operations, the plaintiff has extensive scarring; she has no muscles in her abdomen; she has a hernia; and she must always wear a binder.

We find no error in the admission into evidence of a photograph of the plaintiff’s abdomen since it was relevant to the jury’s assessment of the plaintiff’s pain and suffering (see, Gallo v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 112 AD2d 345).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 685, 630 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krueger-v-frisenda-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack