Ruiz v. New York City Transit Authority

44 A.D.3d 331, 843 N.Y.S.2d 40
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 4, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 331 (Ruiz 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
Ruiz v. New York City Transit Authority, 44 A.D.3d 331, 843 N.Y.S.2d 40 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered July 6, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor, awarded $350,000 for past pain and suffering and $750,000 for future pain and suffering over a period of 34 years, [332]*332plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously modified, on the facts, to the extent of vacating the jury’s award for past and future pain and suffering and remanding the matter for a new trial solely on the issue of such damages and otherwise affirmed, without costs, unless plaintiff, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, stipulates to a reduction of the award for past pain and suffering to $100,000 and for future pain and suffering to $200,000, and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith.

Plaintiff, a passenger on a bus owned and/or operated by defendants, was injured when the driver brought the vehicle to a sudden stop, causing her to fall to the floor. She underwent surgery for a fractured right ankle, involving open reduction and internal fixation with a plate and screws, and remained in the hospital for a week. The $1.1 million award deviates materially from reasonable compensation for this injury to the extent indicated (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The 46-year-old plaintiff experienced an uncomplicated recovery, with few limitations other than inability to walk for long periods of time and some occasional pain that she treats with over-the-counter medication (see e.g. Uriondo v Timberline Camplands, Inc., 19 AD3d 282 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 704 [2006]; Clark v N-H Farms, Inc., 15 AD3d 605 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Related

Samlal v. Ghanbarpour
2020 NY Slip Op 06730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Soto v. United States
S.D. New York, 2019
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)
Hamer v. City of New York
106 A.D.3d 504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Micky v. City of New York
96 A.D.3d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Lowenstein v. Normandy Group, LLC
51 A.D.3d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Nolan v. Union College Trust of Schnectady
51 A.D.3d 1253 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 A.D.3d 331, 843 N.Y.S.2d 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2007.