Merola v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merola v. State

203 A.D.2d 541, 612 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319

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

DecidedApril 25, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 541 (Merola v. State) 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

Merola v. State, 203 A.D.2d 541, 612 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), dated July 15, 1991, as, upon finding her 50% at fault in the happening of the accident, awarded her damages for pain and suffering, but did not award her any damages for lost earnings.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the overly speculative testimony of the claimant’s expert was insufficient to establish that any future earning potential was lost by the claimant as a result of the subject accident. Accordingly, we find that the Court of Claims properly held that no award of damages for lost earnings could be made under the circumstances. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), dated July 15, 1991, as, upon finding her 50% at fault in the happening of the accident, awarded her damages for pain and suffering, but did not award her any damages for lost earnings.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the overly speculative testimony of the claimant’s expert was insufficient to establish that any future earning potential was lost by the claimant as a result of the subject accident. Accordingly, we find that the Court of Claims properly held that no award of damages for lost earnings could be made under the circumstances. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 541, 612 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merola-v-state-nyappdiv-1994.