Moorer v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moorer v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 79, 707 N.Y.S.2d 833, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4894

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

DecidedMay 4, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 79 (Moorer v. City of New York) 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

Moorer v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 79, 707 N.Y.S.2d 833, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, [80]*80Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered on or about April 13, 1999, awarding plaintiff damages for personal injuries structured pursuant to CPLR article 50-B, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate those portions of the judgment computing the amount of plaintiff’s annuity based upon the present, discounted value of future damages in excess of $250,000 and to remand the matter for entry of an amended judgment in which the amount of plaintiff’s annuity is computed based upon the future, undiscounted value of plaintiff’s future damages in excess of $250,000, provided, however, that prejudgment interest on future damages should be calculated based on the present value of such damages as of the date of the liability verdict, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The judgment must be vacated to the extent indicated and recalculated so as to use the future, undiscounted value, rather than the present value, of future damages for the computation of plaintiff’s annuity (see, Bryant v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 93 NY2d 592). The calculation of prejudgment interest on future damages, however, should be based on the present value of such damages as of December 6, 1996, the date of the liability verdict (see, Pay v State of New York, 87 NY2d 1011).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Rubin, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, [80]*80Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered on or about April 13, 1999, awarding plaintiff damages for personal injuries structured pursuant to CPLR article 50-B, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate those portions of the judgment computing the amount of plaintiff’s annuity based upon the present, discounted value of future damages in excess of $250,000 and to remand the matter for entry of an amended judgment in which the amount of plaintiff’s annuity is computed based upon the future, undiscounted value of plaintiff’s future damages in excess of $250,000, provided, however, that prejudgment interest on future damages should be calculated based on the present value of such damages as of the date of the liability verdict, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The judgment must be vacated to the extent indicated and recalculated so as to use the future, undiscounted value, rather than the present value, of future damages for the computation of plaintiff’s annuity (see, Bryant v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 93 NY2d 592). The calculation of prejudgment interest on future damages, however, should be based on the present value of such damages as of December 6, 1996, the date of the liability verdict (see, Pay v State of New York, 87 NY2d 1011).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Rubin, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 79, 707 N.Y.S.2d 833, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moorer-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack