Ramlakhan v. Mangru

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramlakhan v. Mangru

253 A.D.2d 806, 678 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9582

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 21, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a battery, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated October 9, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal amount of $78,000 ($45,000 in damages for pain and suffering, $8,000 in lost earnings, and $25,000 in punitive damages).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). In addition, the damages awarded were adequately supported by the trial evidence and were not excessive (cf., Papa v City of New York, 194 AD2d 527, 531; Georgiadis v State of New York, 106 AD2d 706, 707-708). In view of the premeditated and brutal nature of the defendants’ attack upon the plaintiff with baseball bats, resulting in serious injuries, we find that the $25,000 awarded in punitive damages was not excessive.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, 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 resulting from a battery, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated October 9, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal amount of $78,000 ($45,000 in damages for pain and suffering, $8,000 in lost earnings, and $25,000 in punitive damages).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134). In addition, the damages awarded were adequately supported by the trial evidence and were not excessive (cf., Papa v City of New York, 194 AD2d 527, 531; Georgiadis v State of New York, 106 AD2d 706, 707-708). In view of the premeditated and brutal nature of the defendants’ attack upon the plaintiff with baseball bats, resulting in serious injuries, we find that the $25,000 awarded in punitive damages was not excessive.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Ramlakhan v. Mangru, 253 A.D.2d 806, 678 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

253 A.D.2d 806 (Ramlakhan v. Mangru) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related