Montgomery v. Long Island Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montgomery v. Long Island Railroad

129 A.D.2d 690, 514 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45375

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

DecidedApril 20, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.2d 690 (Montgomery v. Long Island Railroad) 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

Montgomery v. Long Island Railroad, 129 A.D.2d 690, 514 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.), entered March 14, 1986, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $106,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly precluded the defendant from introducing evidence of income benefits that the plaintiff was [691]*691receiving in the form of a pension from the defendant and a disability pension from the Railroad Retirement Board. Such "collateral sources” of income may not be considered by a jury in evaluating or in mitigation of a party’s claim for damages (see, e.g., Heåly v Rennert, 9 NY2d 202, 206-208; Lehr v City of New York, 16 AD2d 702; see also, Eichel v New York Cent. Ry. Co., 375 US 253, 254-256).

In addition, we do not believe that the jury’s award to the plaintiff of $60,000 for pain and suffering, $6,000 for past medical expenses, and $12,000 for future medical expenses should be set aside as excessive. They were not unreasonable in view of the evidence before the jury (see, e.g., Petosa v City of New York, 63 AD2d 1016). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, 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 appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.), entered March 14, 1986, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $106,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly precluded the defendant from introducing evidence of income benefits that the plaintiff was [691]*691receiving in the form of a pension from the defendant and a disability pension from the Railroad Retirement Board. Such "collateral sources” of income may not be considered by a jury in evaluating or in mitigation of a party’s claim for damages (see, e.g., Heåly v Rennert, 9 NY2d 202, 206-208; Lehr v City of New York, 16 AD2d 702; see also, Eichel v New York Cent. Ry. Co., 375 US 253, 254-256).

In addition, we do not believe that the jury’s award to the plaintiff of $60,000 for pain and suffering, $6,000 for past medical expenses, and $12,000 for future medical expenses should be set aside as excessive. They were not unreasonable in view of the evidence before the jury (see, e.g., Petosa v City of New York, 63 AD2d 1016). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.2d 690, 514 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack