Schultz v. Turner Construction Co.

278 A.D.2d 76, 717 N.Y.S.2d 182, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13090
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 14, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 76 (Schultz v. Turner Construction Co.) 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
Schultz v. Turner Construction Co., 278 A.D.2d 76, 717 N.Y.S.2d 182, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stall-man, J., and a jury), entered October 26, 1999, awarding plaintiffs, inter alia, damages in the principal amounts of $200,000 and $400,000 for past and future pain and suffering, respectively, and $55,000 and $200,000 for past and future loss of services, respectively, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ claim that plaintiffs fraudulently concealed evidence of re-injury was not preserved for appellate review by timely objection, and we decline to consider it (CPLR 4017). Were we to consider such claim, we would find that defendants’ failure to discover this evidence was not due to fraud on plaintiffs’ part but to lack of due diligence on their part. In ad[77]*77dition, we would note that the re-injury was discovered during the course of plaintiffs’ direct case, that the jury was advised thereof and instructed not to factor it into their deliberations, and that defendants, as the trial court stated, “really made hay with it” in a summation that emphasized the nondisclosure as a “deliberate deception.” The challenged items of damages are not excessive for a knee injury that required arthroscopic surgery followed by eight months of physical therapy three times a week, continues to require follow-up care, will likely require additional surgery in the future, and has had a significant and severe impact on the quality of the injured plaintiff’s life and on his ability to perform many household duties, and will continue to do so over a period of 25 years. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Cook v. Castillo Livery Corp.
55 A.D.3d 392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Villaseca v. City of New York
48 A.D.3d 218 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Urbina v. 26 Court Street Associates, LLC
46 A.D.3d 268 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Vertsberger v. City of New York
34 A.D.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Feliciano v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
28 A.D.3d 221 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Sienicki v. 760 West End Avenue Owners, Inc.
23 A.D.3d 271 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Rodriguez v. City of New York
10 A.D.3d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 76, 717 N.Y.S.2d 182, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-turner-construction-co-nyappdiv-2000.