Stiuso v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stiuso v. City of New York

228 A.D.2d 663, 645 N.Y.2d 314, 645 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7366

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

DecidedJune 24, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 663 (Stiuso v. City of New York) 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

Stiuso v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 663, 645 N.Y.2d 314, 645 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[664]*664On October 30, 1988, the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident caused, in part, by the appellant’s negligence, as the result of which she suffered, inter alia, a broken jaw and the loss of her right eye. We agree with the appellant’s contention that the damages awarded were excessive. The record reveals that the plaintiff has been able to maintain her job and although she will require plastic surgery, she does not suffer continued pain. In reaching our determination, we have also considered the fact that the plaintiff has not adjusted well to her injuries. Under the circumstances, an award of $1,750,000 is appropriate (see, LaPaglia v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 143 AD2d 173; Simon v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 124 AD2d 655; Goble v State of New York, 123 AD2d 664).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

[664]*664On October 30, 1988, the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident caused, in part, by the appellant’s negligence, as the result of which she suffered, inter alia, a broken jaw and the loss of her right eye. We agree with the appellant’s contention that the damages awarded were excessive. The record reveals that the plaintiff has been able to maintain her job and although she will require plastic surgery, she does not suffer continued pain. In reaching our determination, we have also considered the fact that the plaintiff has not adjusted well to her injuries. Under the circumstances, an award of $1,750,000 is appropriate (see, LaPaglia v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 143 AD2d 173; Simon v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 124 AD2d 655; Goble v State of New York, 123 AD2d 664).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 663, 645 N.Y.2d 314, 645 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stiuso-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack