Scarborough v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scarborough v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

92 A.D.3d 752, 938 N.Y.2d 804

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 14, 2012·Published

Opinion

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury verdict on the issue of damages finding that she sustained no damages for future pain and suffering and future medical expenses was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence and, thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Querin v Scotti, 89 AD3d 713 [2011]; [753] DeVito v Oi Ying Ho, 25 AD3d 750, 752 [2006]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]). Mastro, A.PJ., Angiolillo, Eng and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury verdict on the issue of damages finding that she sustained no damages for future pain and suffering and future medical expenses was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence and, thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Querin v Scotti, 89 AD3d 713 [2011]; [753] DeVito v Oi Ying Ho, 25 AD3d 750, 752 [2006]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]). Mastro, A.PJ., Angiolillo, Eng and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Scarborough v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 92 A.D.3d 752, 938 N.Y.2d 804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

92 A.D.3d 752 (Scarborough v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related