Tesoro v. Rozza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tesoro v. Rozza

267 A.D.2d 227, 699 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12518

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 227 (Tesoro v. Rozza) 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

Tesoro v. Rozza, 267 A.D.2d 227, 699 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), entered August 26, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $125,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that he had sustained an injury which resulted in a “permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Further, the jury’s finding was not against the weight of the evidence (see generally, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The defendant’s claim that the award of damages for future pain and suffering was inconsistent with the award for past pain and suffering is not properly before this Court because [228]*228her counsel failed to bring the alleged inconsistency to the trial court’s attention before the jury was discharged (see, Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803; Barone v City of Mount Vernon, 170 AD2d 557). In any event, upon our review of the record, we conclude that the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

The plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. S. Miller, J. P., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), entered August 26, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $125,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that he had sustained an injury which resulted in a “permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Further, the jury’s finding was not against the weight of the evidence (see generally, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

The defendant’s claim that the award of damages for future pain and suffering was inconsistent with the award for past pain and suffering is not properly before this Court because [228]*228her counsel failed to bring the alleged inconsistency to the trial court’s attention before the jury was discharged (see, Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803; Barone v City of Mount Vernon, 170 AD2d 557). In any event, upon our review of the record, we conclude that the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

The plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. S. Miller, J. P., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 227, 699 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tesoro-v-rozza-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack