Linszer v. Wachsman

232 A.D.2d 530, 648 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10410
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 21, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 530 (Linszer v. Wachsman) 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
Linszer v. Wachsman, 232 A.D.2d 530, 648 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinions

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), entered February 15, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff the sum of $55,000 for past pain and suffering and the sum of $150,000 for future pain and suffering, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $210,000, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court entered May 22, [531]*5311995, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $205,000.

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment entered February 15, 1995, is dismissed, as that judgment was superseded by the amended judgment entered May 22,1995; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

We are unpersuaded by the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in failing to deliver to the jury a comparative negligence charge. On the facts presented herein, there was no valid line of reasoning from which the jury could have concluded that the plaintiff engaged in conduct which fell below the standard required by a reasonably prudent person to keep herself from harm (see generally, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 517).

Moreover, the verdict as to damages was supported by the credible evidence adduced at trial (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498-499).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pilgrim v. Wilson Flat, Inc.
110 A.D.3d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Medina-Castro v. McKinney Welding Supply Co.
85 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Marus v. Village Medical
51 A.D.3d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Balsam v. City of New York
298 A.D.2d 479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Bordes v. 170 East 106th St. Realty Corp.
260 A.D.2d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Goldstein v. United States
9 F. Supp. 2d 175 (E.D. New York, 1998)
Moore v. Klondike Fishing Corp.
248 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Litwack v. Litwack
237 A.D.2d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 A.D.2d 530, 648 N.Y.S.2d 981, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linszer-v-wachsman-nyappdiv-1996.