Perry v. Drago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perry v. Drago

303 A.D.2d 570, 756 N.Y.S.2d 503

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 570 (Perry v. Drago) 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

Perry v. Drago, 303 A.D.2d 570, 756 N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated January 22, 2002, which, upon his default on the issue of liability and upon a jury verdict after an inquest on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $120,000 ($20,000 for past pain and suffering and $100,000 for punitive damages).

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts and as matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding punitive damages and substituting therefor a provision severing the claim for punitive damages and granting a new trial with respect thereto; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the appellant, unless within 30 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, the plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, a written stipulation consenting to decrease the verdict as to punitive damages from the sum of $100,000 to the sum of $15,000 and to the entry of an appropriate amended judgment; in the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the [571]*571matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment accordingly.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the award of $20,000 in compensatory damages was not excessive (see CPLR 5501 [c]; see e.g. Balsam v City of New York, 298 AD2d 479 [2002]; Stylianou v Calabrese, 297 AD2d 798 [2002]). However, the award of punitive damages was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Nardelli v Stamberg, 44 NY2d 500 [1978]; Buggie v Cutler, 222 AD2d 640, 642 [1995]; Laurie Marie M. v Jeffrey T.M., 159 AD2d 52, 61 [1990], affd 77 NY2d 981 [1991]; cf. Ramlakhan v Mangru, 253 AD2d 806 [1998]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Rivera, 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, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated January 22, 2002, which, upon his default on the issue of liability and upon a jury verdict after an inquest on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $120,000 ($20,000 for past pain and suffering and $100,000 for punitive damages).

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts and as matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding punitive damages and substituting therefor a provision severing the claim for punitive damages and granting a new trial with respect thereto; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the appellant, unless within 30 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, the plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, a written stipulation consenting to decrease the verdict as to punitive damages from the sum of $100,000 to the sum of $15,000 and to the entry of an appropriate amended judgment; in the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the [571]*571matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment accordingly.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the award of $20,000 in compensatory damages was not excessive (see CPLR 5501 [c]; see e.g. Balsam v City of New York, 298 AD2d 479 [2002]; Stylianou v Calabrese, 297 AD2d 798 [2002]). However, the award of punitive damages was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Nardelli v Stamberg, 44 NY2d 500 [1978]; Buggie v Cutler, 222 AD2d 640, 642 [1995]; Laurie Marie M. v Jeffrey T.M., 159 AD2d 52, 61 [1990], affd 77 NY2d 981 [1991]; cf. Ramlakhan v Mangru, 253 AD2d 806 [1998]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 570, 756 N.Y.S.2d 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-drago-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack