Schneider v. Betancourt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schneider v. Betancourt

261 A.D.2d 383, 689 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4503

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 3, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 383 (Schneider v. Betancourt) 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

Schneider v. Betancourt, 261 A.D.2d 383, 689 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Iris Betancourt and Israel Betancourt and the defendant Faustino Sanementerio separately appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated April 7, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $398,624. The notices of appeal from an order dated March 16, 1998, are deemed premature notices of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff underwent two invasive procedures under emergency care and sustained two permanent scars, one facial, as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The testimony that he can [384]*384no longer engage in strenuous physical activity was uncontroverted by the defendants. Consequently, we find that the damages awarded to the plaintiff were not excessive because they do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances of this case (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Rivera v City of New York, 170 AD2d 591). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Iris Betancourt and Israel Betancourt and the defendant Faustino Sanementerio separately appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated April 7, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $398,624. The notices of appeal from an order dated March 16, 1998, are deemed premature notices of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff underwent two invasive procedures under emergency care and sustained two permanent scars, one facial, as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The testimony that he can [384]*384no longer engage in strenuous physical activity was uncontroverted by the defendants. Consequently, we find that the damages awarded to the plaintiff were not excessive because they do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances of this case (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Rivera v City of New York, 170 AD2d 591). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 383, 689 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneider-v-betancourt-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack