Mujica v. State University Construction Fund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mujica v. State University Construction Fund

275 A.D.2d 976, 715 N.Y.S.2d 194, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9593

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 976 (Mujica v. State University Construction Fund) 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

Mujica v. State University Construction Fund, 275 A.D.2d 976, 715 N.Y.S.2d 194, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and new trial granted on damages for future pain and suffering only unless plaintiff, within 20 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry, stipulates to reduce the verdict for future pain and suffering to $500,000, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: While performing asbestos removal work in July 1990, plaintiff stepped into a manhole, tearing the posterior cruciate ligament in his right knee. Plaintiff underwent surgery in April 1991, at which time hardware was inserted in his knee. The hardware was removed in December 1991. Plaintiff, who was 19 years old at the time of his injury, continues to experience swelling and pain in his knee and walks with a limp. We conclude that Supreme Court properly structured the judgment pursuant to CPLR article 50-B. We further conclude that the jury’s award of $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering “deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501 [c]; see also, Prunty v YMCA of Lockport, 206 AD 2d 911). In our view, the highest amount of damages justified by plaintiff’s evidence of future pain and suffering is $500,000. We modify the judgment, therefore, by vacating the award of damages for future pain and suffering, and we grant a new trial on damages for future pain and suffering only unless plaintiff, within 20 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry, stipulates to reduce the verdict for future pain and suffering to $500,000, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and as modified affirmed. (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J. — Negligence.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and new trial granted on damages for future pain and suffering only unless plaintiff, within 20 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry, stipulates to reduce the verdict for future pain and suffering to $500,000, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: While performing asbestos removal work in July 1990, plaintiff stepped into a manhole, tearing the posterior cruciate ligament in his right knee. Plaintiff underwent surgery in April 1991, at which time hardware was inserted in his knee. The hardware was removed in December 1991. Plaintiff, who was 19 years old at the time of his injury, continues to experience swelling and pain in his knee and walks with a limp. We conclude that Supreme Court properly structured the judgment pursuant to CPLR article 50-B. We further conclude that the jury’s award of $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering “deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501 [c]; see also, Prunty v YMCA of Lockport, 206 AD 2d 911). In our view, the highest amount of damages justified by plaintiff’s evidence of future pain and suffering is $500,000. We modify the judgment, therefore, by vacating the award of damages for future pain and suffering, and we grant a new trial on damages for future pain and suffering only unless plaintiff, within 20 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry, stipulates to reduce the verdict for future pain and suffering to $500,000, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and as modified affirmed. (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J. — Negligence.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 976, 715 N.Y.S.2d 194, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mujica-v-state-university-construction-fund-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack