Ruggiero v. Banner Glass & Mirror Corp.

232 A.D.2d 395, 648 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9857
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 7, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 395 (Ruggiero v. Banner Glass & Mirror Corp.) 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
Ruggiero v. Banner Glass & Mirror Corp., 232 A.D.2d 395, 648 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.), dated June 5, 1995, which, upon an order of the same court (Vaccaro, J.), dated March 1, 1995, granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability and upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $258,732.84.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial on the issue of damages is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries to his back, neck, and jaw as a result of an automobile accident in which his vehicle was struck from behind by the defendants’ vehicle.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, precipitation or activa[396]*396tion of a latent condition must be affirmatively pleaded and proven before recovery therefor can be allowed (see, Weisent v City of New York, 29 AD2d 776; Roth v Hudson Tr. Lines, 72 Misc 2d 999, 1002). Since the plaintiff did not allege such damages in the complaint or bill of particulars, the court erred when it charged the jury over objection that the defendants were legally responsible for any injuries the plaintiff suffered as a result of the defendants’ negligence even though those injuries, due to a bodily condition which made the plaintiff more susceptible to injury than a person in normal health, may have been greater than those which would have been suffered by a normal person under the same circumstances. Such error was not harmless.

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the appellants’ remaining contentions. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Kolsky
2018 NY Slip Op 5713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Rodgers v. New York City Transit Authority
70 A.D.3d 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Anderson v. Dainack
39 A.D.3d 1065 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Williams v. City of New York
240 A.D.2d 734 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 A.D.2d 395, 648 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruggiero-v-banner-glass-mirror-corp-nyappdiv-1996.