Murtagh v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murtagh v. City of New York

160 A.D.2d 248, 555 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3793

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

DecidedApril 5, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.D.2d 248 (Murtagh 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

Murtagh v. City of New York, 160 A.D.2d 248, 555 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered December 22, 1988, upon a jury verdict, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the award of damages to plaintiff Thomas Murtagh for past and future loss of enjoyment of life in the amount of $270,000, and as so modified, otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In light of the severity of plaintiffs injuries, his persistent disability and economic loss, the jury’s verdict was not so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court (Ostrowski v Apex Mar. Corp., 123 AD2d 257; Reinhart v Long Is. Light. Co., 100 AD2d 755). However, as plaintiff concedes, the verdict must be reduced, since the jury awarded damages for loss of enjoyment of life, past and future, which were duplicative of damages awarded for conscious pain and suffering (McDougald v Garber, 73 NY2d 246; Grandinetti v Rose, 155 AD2d 378). We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered December 22, 1988, upon a jury verdict, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the award of damages to plaintiff Thomas Murtagh for past and future loss of enjoyment of life in the amount of $270,000, and as so modified, otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In light of the severity of plaintiffs injuries, his persistent disability and economic loss, the jury’s verdict was not so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court (Ostrowski v Apex Mar. Corp., 123 AD2d 257; Reinhart v Long Is. Light. Co., 100 AD2d 755). However, as plaintiff concedes, the verdict must be reduced, since the jury awarded damages for loss of enjoyment of life, past and future, which were duplicative of damages awarded for conscious pain and suffering (McDougald v Garber, 73 NY2d 246; Grandinetti v Rose, 155 AD2d 378). We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 248, 555 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murtagh-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack