Paolini v. Sienkiewicz

278 A.D.2d 858, 719 N.Y.S.2d 408
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 27, 2000
DocketAppeal No. 1
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 858 (Paolini v. Sienkiewicz) 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
Paolini v. Sienkiewicz, 278 A.D.2d 858, 719 N.Y.S.2d 408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury’s award of damages as contrary to the weight of the evidence. It cannot be said that the evidence so preponderated in favor of plaintiff that the verdict awarding him $17,500 for past pain and suffering could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746; Wesolek v Tops Mkts., 255 AD2d 972). Nor is the award of $5,000 for future pain and suffering over a two-year period contrary to the weight of the evidence. The court determined as a matter of law that plaintiff had sustained a significant disfigurement based on a scar on his forehead that was 3 [859]*859centimeters long and 5 millimeters wide. Plaintiff’s plastic surgeon testified, however, that the scar could be improved with surgery and that, as a result of the surgery, “the scar would be longer, but less noticeable.” The jury, having had the opportunity to view the scar, could have determined based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence that with such surgical revision the scar would no longer constitute a significant disfigurement, and thus that plaintiff was not entitled to damages for future pain and suffering beyond the two-year period (see generally, Petrivelli v Walz, 227 AD2d 735, 736). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Set Aside Verdict.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

Hornicek v. Yonchik
284 A.D.2d 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 858, 719 N.Y.S.2d 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paolini-v-sienkiewicz-nyappdiv-2000.