Stokes v. New York Medical Group, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stokes v. New York Medical Group, P.C.

304 A.D.2d 449, 757 N.Y.S.2d 723, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4218

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

DecidedApril 22, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 449 (Stokes v. New York Medical Group, P.C.) 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

Stokes v. New York Medical Group, P.C., 304 A.D.2d 449, 757 N.Y.S.2d 723, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J., and a jury), entered August 3, 2001, in an action for medical malpractice, awarding the infant plaintiff prestructured damages of $1 million and $2 million for past and future pain and suffering, respectively, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The damage awards do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation to a teenager for the loss of two gangrenous toes and part of the metatarsal head, with concomitant pain, permanent gait impairment, embarrassment and increased susceptibility to future arthritis and injury (CPLR 5501 [c]; cf. Carl v Daniels, 268 AD2d 395 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 704 [2001]; Vasquez v Chase Manhattan Bank, 266 AD2d 3 [1999]; Dauria v City of New York, 178 AD2d 289 [1991], lv denied 80 NY2d 751 [1992]). We have considered defendants’ other arguments, including that plaintiffs attorney exceeded the bounds of permissible questioning and argument, and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J., and a jury), entered August 3, 2001, in an action for medical malpractice, awarding the infant plaintiff prestructured damages of $1 million and $2 million for past and future pain and suffering, respectively, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The damage awards do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation to a teenager for the loss of two gangrenous toes and part of the metatarsal head, with concomitant pain, permanent gait impairment, embarrassment and increased susceptibility to future arthritis and injury (CPLR 5501 [c]; cf. Carl v Daniels, 268 AD2d 395 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 704 [2001]; Vasquez v Chase Manhattan Bank, 266 AD2d 3 [1999]; Dauria v City of New York, 178 AD2d 289 [1991], lv denied 80 NY2d 751 [1992]). We have considered defendants’ other arguments, including that plaintiffs attorney exceeded the bounds of permissible questioning and argument, and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 449, 757 N.Y.S.2d 723, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-new-york-medical-group-pc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack