Montenegro v. Richfield Properties, Ltd.

269 A.D.2d 505, 704 N.Y.S.2d 497, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1960
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 22, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 505 (Montenegro v. Richfield Properties, Ltd.) 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
Montenegro v. Richfield Properties, Ltd., 269 A.D.2d 505, 704 N.Y.S.2d 497, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County [506]*506(Vaughan, J.), dated December 16, 1998, as, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability finding the defendant Consol Building Associates 40% at fault and the third-party defendant Galaxy Knitting Mills, Inc., 60% at fault in the happening of the accident, and upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages awarding the plaintiff Rosanna Montenegro the sum of $379,400 ($115,000 for past pain and suffering, $20,000 for past lost earnings, $182,000 for future pain and suffering, $21,000 for past medical expenses, and $250,000 for future medical expenses which was subsequently reduced to $41,400 by order of the same court dated May 29, 1998), and the plaintiff Jose Montenegro the sum of $20,000 for loss of services, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the sum of $399,400.

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

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the trial court properly admitted the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert regarding a developing arthritic condition and the need for future surgery (see, Holshek v Stokes, 122 AD2d 777; Manoni v Giordano, 102 AD2d 846).

The awards did not deviate from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Chase v City of New York, 233 AD2d 474; Gaetan v New York City Tr. Auth., 213 AD2d 510). Sullivan, J. P.; S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Benguigui v. Racer
2021 NY Slip Op 05318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Floyd v. 1710 Realty, LLC
2016 NY Slip Op 8840 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Hammond v. Welsh
29 A.D.3d 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 A.D.2d 505, 704 N.Y.S.2d 497, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montenegro-v-richfield-properties-ltd-nyappdiv-2000.