Mendoza v. Allstate Insurance

13 A.D.3d 594, 786 N.Y.S.2d 341, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15709
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 27, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 594 (Mendoza v. Allstate Insurance) 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
Mendoza v. Allstate Insurance, 13 A.D.3d 594, 786 N.Y.S.2d 341, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages under the uninsured motorist provision of an insur[595]*595anee policy, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated June 27, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff damages in the sums of $100,000 for past pain and suffering and $50,000 for future pain and suffering, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $150,000.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and in the interests of justice, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $150,000 and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $50,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment accordingly.

The evidence was legally sufficient (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]) to support the jury’s finding that the plaintiff sustained a significant limitation of use of a body function or system, thereby constituting a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

However, the judgment must be modified by reducing the award of damages to the maximum amount permitted by the subject contract of insurance, to wit, $50,000.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Meegan v. Progressive Insurance
43 A.D.3d 182 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 594, 786 N.Y.S.2d 341, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-2004.