Marron v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marron v. City of New York

221 A.D.2d 510, 635 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12001

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 20, 1995·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered April 6, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict finding the appellant 70% at fault in the happening of the accident, and a verdict finding the plaintiff to have suffered damages in the sum of $511,700, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $358,190 (70% of $511,700).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s apportionment of liability, and consequently its verdict should not be disturbed (see, Salazar v Fisher, 147 AD2d 470; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129; Delgado v Board of Educ., 65 AD2d 547, affd 48 NY2d [511]*511643). Moreover, we find that the awards for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, 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 defendant City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered April 6, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict finding the appellant 70% at fault in the happening of the accident, and a verdict finding the plaintiff to have suffered damages in the sum of $511,700, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $358,190 (70% of $511,700).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s apportionment of liability, and consequently its verdict should not be disturbed (see, Salazar v Fisher, 147 AD2d 470; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129; Delgado v Board of Educ., 65 AD2d 547, affd 48 NY2d [511]*511643). Moreover, we find that the awards for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Marron v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 510, 635 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

221 A.D.2d 510 (Marron v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related