Mandroukakis v. County of Westchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mandroukakis v. County of Westchester

272 A.D.2d 383, 707 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5064

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

DecidedMay 8, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 383 (Mandroukakis v. County of Westchester) 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

Mandroukakis v. County of Westchester, 272 A.D.2d 383, 707 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Richard Stivala and Lung-Ming Wei appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered December 9, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $7,500,000 ($2,500,000 for past pain and suffering, $3,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $2,000,000 for lost earnings).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and a new trial is granted on the issue of damages only, unless within 30 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, Arlene Mandroukakis shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages for past pain and suffering from the sum of $2,500,000 to the sum of $750,000, for future pain and suffering from the sum of $3,000,000 to the sum of $1,500,000, and for lost earnings from the sum of $2,000,000 to the sum of $750,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,000,000; in the event that Arlene Mandroukakis so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The jury verdict is rational (see, Simmons v East Nassau Med. Group, 260 AD2d 463, 464), and is based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Kiker v Nassau County, 175 AD2d 99, 101).

However, in evaluating whether an assessment of damages is excessive, this Court must determine whether it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Contorino v Florida Ob/Gyn Assn., 259 AD2d 460; Chazon v Parkway Med. Group, 168 AD2d 660). The damages awarded are excessive to the extent indicated. Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur. [See, 276 AD2d 533.]

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Richard Stivala and Lung-Ming Wei appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered December 9, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $7,500,000 ($2,500,000 for past pain and suffering, $3,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $2,000,000 for lost earnings).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and a new trial is granted on the issue of damages only, unless within 30 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, Arlene Mandroukakis shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages for past pain and suffering from the sum of $2,500,000 to the sum of $750,000, for future pain and suffering from the sum of $3,000,000 to the sum of $1,500,000, and for lost earnings from the sum of $2,000,000 to the sum of $750,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,000,000; in the event that Arlene Mandroukakis so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The jury verdict is rational (see, Simmons v East Nassau Med. Group, 260 AD2d 463, 464), and is based on a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Kiker v Nassau County, 175 AD2d 99, 101).

However, in evaluating whether an assessment of damages is excessive, this Court must determine whether it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Contorino v Florida Ob/Gyn Assn., 259 AD2d 460; Chazon v Parkway Med. Group, 168 AD2d 660). The damages awarded are excessive to the extent indicated. Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur. [See, 276 AD2d 533.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 383, 707 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandroukakis-v-county-of-westchester-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack