Smith v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

58 A.D.3d 552, 872 N.Y.S.2d 107

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 27, 2009·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered October 25, 2007, upon a jury verdict awarding plaintiff $100,000 for past pain and suffering and $800,000 for future pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial evidence established that plaintiff suffered severe damage to her left knee, including tears of the medial and lateral menisci, a torn ligament, torn cartilage in various places, and damage to the patella, with permanent osteochondral defect. She underwent arthroscopic surgery some months after the accident, and, while her knee improved to some degree, it never functioned normally again. Indeed, plaintiff continued to experience chronic pain, swelling and buckling of the knee, and her treating orthopedic surgeon, who testified at trial as her expert witness, recommended a second arthroscopic surgery. The [553] surgeon testified that the injuries to plaintiffs knees were permanent and would continue to progress, and that arthritic changes would probably develop, requiring further surgical procedures, including perhaps knee replacement. The damages awarded to plaintiff for past and future pain and suffering in connection with the foregoing injuries do not “ deviate [ ] materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501 [c]; see e.g. Urbina v 26 Ct. St. Assoc., LLC, 46 AD3d 268 [2007]; Nassour v City of New York, 35 AD3d 556 [2006]; Calzado v New York City Tr. Auth., 304 AD2d 385 [2003]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered October 25, 2007, upon a jury verdict awarding plaintiff $100,000 for past pain and suffering and $800,000 for future pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial evidence established that plaintiff suffered severe damage to her left knee, including tears of the medial and lateral menisci, a torn ligament, torn cartilage in various places, and damage to the patella, with permanent osteochondral defect. She underwent arthroscopic surgery some months after the accident, and, while her knee improved to some degree, it never functioned normally again. Indeed, plaintiff continued to experience chronic pain, swelling and buckling of the knee, and her treating orthopedic surgeon, who testified at trial as her expert witness, recommended a second arthroscopic surgery. The [553] surgeon testified that the injuries to plaintiffs knees were permanent and would continue to progress, and that arthritic changes would probably develop, requiring further surgical procedures, including perhaps knee replacement. The damages awarded to plaintiff for past and future pain and suffering in connection with the foregoing injuries do not “ deviate [ ] materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501 [c]; see e.g. Urbina v 26 Ct. St. Assoc., LLC, 46 AD3d 268 [2007]; Nassour v City of New York, 35 AD3d 556 [2006]; Calzado v New York City Tr. Auth., 304 AD2d 385 [2003]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Smith v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 58 A.D.3d 552, 872 N.Y.S.2d 107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

58 A.D.3d 552 (Smith v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related