Rivera v. Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc.

16 A.D.3d 274, 792 N.Y.S.2d 39, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3137
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 24, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 274 (Rivera v. Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc.) 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
Rivera v. Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc., 16 A.D.3d 274, 792 N.Y.S.2d 39, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), entered on or about June 17, 2004, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall on defendant’s premises, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for a new trial on the issue of future pain and suffering unless plaintiff stipulated to reduce the jury’s award therefor from $362,500 to $40,000, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to increase the amount to which plaintiff must stipulate in order to avoid a new trial on future pain and suffering to $200,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The trial court’s remittitur is excessive to the extent indicated (CPLR 5501 [c]). Plaintiff sustained an ankle injury that did not satisfactorily respond to, inter alia, months of physical therapy, [275]*275molded splints or AFOs, arthroscopic surgery, months of postoperative physical therapy, and steroid injections. As a result, at the age of 25, plaintiff has already developed post-traumatic arthritis in her ankle that her treating physician testified, without contradiction, is permanent and will progressively worsen, causing increasing pain and lessening tolerance for walking and other activities. To alleviate these symptoms, plaintiff will require physical therapy and steroid injections, will likely require major surgery to reconstruct her anterior talofibular ligament, and might also require further surgery to excise scarring from a meniscus lesion. That plaintiff is gainfully employed and presently able to walk without assistance does not negate the ongoing and permanent nature of her injury. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

VincentvLandi
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Vincent v. Landi
123 A.D.3d 1183 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Telsaint v. City of New York
120 A.D.3d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Oakes v. Patel
988 N.E.2d 488 (New York Court of Appeals, 2013)
Williams v. New York City Transit Authority
95 A.D.3d 1003 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
OAKES, DANIEL C. v. PATEL, M.D., RAJNIKANT
87 A.D.3d 816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 274, 792 N.Y.S.2d 39, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-lincoln-center-for-the-performing-arts-inc-nyappdiv-2005.