Smith v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

58 A.D.3d 552, 872 N.Y.S.2d 107
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

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

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]*553surgeon 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

Related

McKenna v. Henry V Murray Senior LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 32368(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Fuentes v. Ingram
2025 NY Slip Op 00951 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Mejia v. Japan Socy., Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 50119(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2025)
Munzon v. Victor at Fifth, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 3852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Andino v. Mills
135 A.D.3d 407 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Reyes v. New York City Transit Authority
126 A.D.3d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 A.D.3d 552, 872 N.Y.S.2d 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-manhattan-bronx-surface-transit-operating-authority-nyappdiv-2009.