Rubin v. First Avenue Owners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubin v. First Avenue Owners, Inc.

209 A.D.2d 367, 618 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11802

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 1994·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered June 22, 1993, which dismissed the action against defendant, Susan Orsini Design Associates, and, after a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff $841,500, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of plaintiff’s trip and fall over a 12-inch high planter in the lobby of the apartment building in which plaintiff was a tenant, the trial court properly dismissed the action against the interior designer because there was no evidence that the specifications it provided were faulty.

The damages awarded do not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances (CPLR 5501 [c]) in view of the testimony of plaintiff’s medical expert with respect to the permanency of her pain, loss of function, nerve damage and deformity, none of which defendants saw fit to challenge by calling their own expert.

We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered June 22, 1993, which dismissed the action against defendant, Susan Orsini Design Associates, and, after a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff $841,500, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of plaintiff’s trip and fall over a 12-inch high planter in the lobby of the apartment building in which plaintiff was a tenant, the trial court properly dismissed the action against the interior designer because there was no evidence that the specifications it provided were faulty.

The damages awarded do not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances (CPLR 5501 [c]) in view of the testimony of plaintiff’s medical expert with respect to the permanency of her pain, loss of function, nerve damage and deformity, none of which defendants saw fit to challenge by calling their own expert.

We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Rubin v. First Avenue Owners, Inc., 209 A.D.2d 367, 618 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

209 A.D.2d 367 (Rubin v. First Avenue Owners, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related