O'Keefe v. Long Island Lighting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Keefe v. Long Island Lighting Co.

136 A.D.2d 611, 523 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 405

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A.D.2d 611 (O'Keefe v. Long Island Lighting Co.) 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

O'Keefe v. Long Island Lighting Co., 136 A.D.2d 611, 523 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rubenfeld, J.), entered June 18, 1986, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of him and against the defendants in the principal amount of only $27,000.

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

The plaintiff urges this court to set aside the jury’s award for both pain and suffering and for loss of earnings as so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience. However, the award is neither inadequate nor shocking. The plaintiff presented no documentary proof at trial respecting his loss of earnings. Further, the two medical experts strongly disagreed as to the nature, extent and the cause of the plaintiff’s physical complaints. Where conflicting medical evidence is presented at trial, a jury award will not be set aside as inadequate (see, Maldonado v WABC Towing Corp., 121 AD2d 517). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Fiber and Harwood, 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, etc., the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rubenfeld, J.), entered June 18, 1986, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of him and against the defendants in the principal amount of only $27,000.

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

The plaintiff urges this court to set aside the jury’s award for both pain and suffering and for loss of earnings as so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience. However, the award is neither inadequate nor shocking. The plaintiff presented no documentary proof at trial respecting his loss of earnings. Further, the two medical experts strongly disagreed as to the nature, extent and the cause of the plaintiff’s physical complaints. Where conflicting medical evidence is presented at trial, a jury award will not be set aside as inadequate (see, Maldonado v WABC Towing Corp., 121 AD2d 517). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Fiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.2d 611, 523 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/okeefe-v-long-island-lighting-co-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack