Small v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Small v. New York City Transit Authority

225 A.D.2d 471, 639 N.Y.2d 922, 639 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3195

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 471 (Small 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

Small v. New York City Transit Authority, 225 A.D.2d 471, 639 N.Y.2d 922, 639 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[472]*472The verdict for past and future pain and suffering deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances (CPLR 5501 [c]) and we reduce it accordingly (see, Cagney v Blaikie, 219 AD2d 483). As to the jury’s verdict for lost earnings and medical expenses, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s determinations. We note that, while the experts disagreed with one another, it was for the jury to resolve the issues of credibility (see, Taype v City of New York, 82 AD2d 648). Finally, defendant has failed to demonstrate that the evidence warranted a jury instruction concerning mitigation of damages. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

[472]*472The verdict for past and future pain and suffering deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances (CPLR 5501 [c]) and we reduce it accordingly (see, Cagney v Blaikie, 219 AD2d 483). As to the jury’s verdict for lost earnings and medical expenses, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s determinations. We note that, while the experts disagreed with one another, it was for the jury to resolve the issues of credibility (see, Taype v City of New York, 82 AD2d 648). Finally, defendant has failed to demonstrate that the evidence warranted a jury instruction concerning mitigation of damages. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 471, 639 N.Y.2d 922, 639 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack