Reyes v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reyes v. New York City Transit Authority

126 A.D.3d 612, 3 N.Y.S.3d 600

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2015

Docket14619 306261/10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 612 (Reyes 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

Reyes v. New York City Transit Authority, 126 A.D.3d 612, 3 N.Y.S.3d 600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*613 Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered November 13, 2013, upon a jury verdict, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarding plaintiff the principal amount of $750,000 for future pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award for future pain and suffering does not “deviate! ] materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501 [c]; see e.g. Smith v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 58 AD3d 552 [1st Dept 2009]; Urbina v 26 Ct. St. Assoc., LLC, 46 AD3d 268 [1st Dept 2007]; Calzado v New York City Tr. Auth., 304 AD2d 385 [1st Dept 2003]). The trial evidence established that plaintiff suffered damage to her left knee, including a laceration requiring 15 staples, a tear of the medial meniscus, and three bulging discs, and that she developed posttraumatic arthritis in the left knee. Plaintiff underwent two years of physical therapy before resorting to arthroscopic surgery and, while her knee improved, she continued to experience pain, walked with a limp, and used a cane. Plaintiffs treating orthopedic surgeon testified that plaintiff would eventually need a total knee replacement, since the cartilage damage was severe and permanent. Moreover, plaintiff has difficulty standing and therefore, since the accident, has been unable to return to her work as a street vendor.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.

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

*613 Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered November 13, 2013, upon a jury verdict, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarding plaintiff the principal amount of $750,000 for future pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award for future pain and suffering does not “deviate! ] materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501 [c]; see e.g. Smith v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 58 AD3d 552 [1st Dept 2009]; Urbina v 26 Ct. St. Assoc., LLC, 46 AD3d 268 [1st Dept 2007]; Calzado v New York City Tr. Auth., 304 AD2d 385 [1st Dept 2003]). The trial evidence established that plaintiff suffered damage to her left knee, including a laceration requiring 15 staples, a tear of the medial meniscus, and three bulging discs, and that she developed posttraumatic arthritis in the left knee. Plaintiff underwent two years of physical therapy before resorting to arthroscopic surgery and, while her knee improved, she continued to experience pain, walked with a limp, and used a cane. Plaintiffs treating orthopedic surgeon testified that plaintiff would eventually need a total knee replacement, since the cartilage damage was severe and permanent. Moreover, plaintiff has difficulty standing and therefore, since the accident, has been unable to return to her work as a street vendor.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 612, 3 N.Y.S.3d 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reyes-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack