Robert v. Long Island Railroad

161 A.D.2d 346, 555 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5275
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 10, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 346 (Robert v. Long Island Railroad) 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
Robert v. Long Island Railroad, 161 A.D.2d 346, 555 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter G. Patsalos, J.), entered January 4, 1989, finding, after a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $140,000, upon reduction in the amount of the jury verdict, based upon stipulation of counsel to reflect present value, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claimed that while an employee of the Long Island Railroad, she suffered smoke inhalation and was rendered asthmatic. Although plaintiff portrayed herself as completely disabled, one of her own experts, i.e., her treating physician, characterized her asthmatic condition as "moderate”. Further, there was no medical testimony that plaintiff was completely disabled; on the contrary, plaintiffs experts indicated that she could seek employment in any smoke-free office environment. Moreover, plaintiffs counsel conceded on summation that she was capable of earning at least $30,000 yearly. Given her excessive absences from work while she was employed at the railroad, the fact that she declined to accept other jobs offered by the railroad after the incident, and her continued failure to seek meaningful employment, the jury may well have concluded that plaintiffs complaints as well as her anticipated lost earnings were greatly overstated.

Based upon the jury’s apparent disbelief of the seriousness of plaintiffs condition, we find that the award of damages herein was not inadequate, and did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Leto v. Amrex Chemical Co.
85 A.D.3d 1509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Raucci v. City School District of City of Mechanicville
203 A.D.2d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Werzberger v. Filsen
165 A.D.2d 974 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 A.D.2d 346, 555 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-1990.