Purkiss-Riddle v. New York City Transit Authority

89 A.D.3d 1001, 933 N.Y.2d 714
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 22, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 1001 (Purkiss-Riddle v. New York City Transit Authority) 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
Purkiss-Riddle v. New York City Transit Authority, 89 A.D.3d 1001, 933 N.Y.2d 714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

[1002]*1002On April 29, 2006, the 69-year-old plaintiff injured her left knee and left shoulder when she fell on an escalator in the defendant’s subway station. After receiving physical therapy for several months, on June 5, 2007, the plaintiff had arthroscopic surgery to repair a torn lateral meniscus. The doctor who performed the surgery testified at trial that the plaintiff also suffered traumatically-induced grade four chondromalacia and synovitis in her knee. After a brief period during which her knee began to feel better, the pain eventually returned. The plaintiff was treated with cortisone injections and viscoelastic supplementation in her knee. The doctor testified that the plaintiff’s injuries were the result of the subject accident and were permanent and progressive. The doctor indicated that, in the future, the plaintiff would have to undergo a total knee replacement and three weeks of physical therapy in a nursing facility. In addition, the plaintiff would have to undergo arthroscopic surgery to repair a torn, supraspinatus tendon of the left shoulder. Under these circumstances, the damages award for past pain and suffering, and the award for future pain and suffering, as reduced by the Supreme Court, do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Harris v City of N.Y. Health & Hosps. Corp., 49 AD3d 321 [2008]; Lopez v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 40 AD3d 221 [2007]; Van Ness v New York City Tr. Auth., 288 AD2d 374 [2001]). Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Fuentes v. Ingram
2025 NY Slip Op 00951 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Santiago v. Boyer
2021 NY Slip Op 02435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Uceta v. Sherwood, LLC
2020 NY Slip Op 07421 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Zapata v. Yugo J & V, LLC
2020 NY Slip Op 2687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Cullen v. Thumser
2019 NY Slip Op 8988 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Munzon v. Victor at Fifth, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 3852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Quijano v. American Transit Insurance Co.
2017 NY Slip Op 8293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Vainer v. DiSalvo
107 A.D.3d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Algerio v. Caribbean Air Conditioning
98 A.D.3d 465 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 A.D.3d 1001, 933 N.Y.2d 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purkiss-riddle-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2011.