Miller v. Sansone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Sansone

127 A.D.2d 569, 511 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43040

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 569 (Miller v. Sansone) 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

Miller v. Sansone, 127 A.D.2d 569, 511 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland [570]*570County (Burchell, J.), dated May 29, 1985, which, after a jury trial, was in her favor in the principal amount of $10,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We have reviewed the facts of this case and do not find the jury’s award of damages to the plaintiff to be inadequate so as to shock the conscience of this court. Therefore, we do hot disturb the jury’s verdict (see, Trocchia v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 121 AD2d 626; McFarland v Makowski, 112 AD2d 922).

None of the plaintiff’s other claims of error requires reversal. The exclusion of the proposed expert testimony of Edmond Provder, a vocational rehabilitation counselor, was not an error of law and was within the discretion of the trial court (cf., Werner v Sun Oil Co., 65 NY2d 839, 840). The trial court also acted properly in delivering to the jury a preexisting condition charge and in refusing to give a latent condition charge (cf., Rosenberg v Rixon, 111 AD2d 910). The trial court’s loss of earnings charge was also proper (see, Caldwell v New Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 NY 282, 286; Small v Housman, 220 NY 504, 511). We see no merit to the other contentions of the plaintiff. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland [570]*570County (Burchell, J.), dated May 29, 1985, which, after a jury trial, was in her favor in the principal amount of $10,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We have reviewed the facts of this case and do not find the jury’s award of damages to the plaintiff to be inadequate so as to shock the conscience of this court. Therefore, we do hot disturb the jury’s verdict (see, Trocchia v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 121 AD2d 626; McFarland v Makowski, 112 AD2d 922).

None of the plaintiff’s other claims of error requires reversal. The exclusion of the proposed expert testimony of Edmond Provder, a vocational rehabilitation counselor, was not an error of law and was within the discretion of the trial court (cf., Werner v Sun Oil Co., 65 NY2d 839, 840). The trial court also acted properly in delivering to the jury a preexisting condition charge and in refusing to give a latent condition charge (cf., Rosenberg v Rixon, 111 AD2d 910). The trial court’s loss of earnings charge was also proper (see, Caldwell v New Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 NY 282, 286; Small v Housman, 220 NY 504, 511). We see no merit to the other contentions of the plaintiff. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 569, 511 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-sansone-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack