Uriondo v. Timberline Camplands, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Uriondo v. Timberline Camplands, Inc.

19 A.D.3d 282, 799 N.Y.S.2d 189, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7024

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

DecidedJune 23, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 282 (Uriondo v. Timberline Camplands, Inc.) 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

Uriondo v. Timberline Camplands, Inc., 19 A.D.3d 282, 799 N.Y.S.2d 189, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[283]*283Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered on or about September 11, 2003, which, after a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff Vicente Uriondo damages, including $25,000 for past pain and suffering, $290,000 for future pain and suffering over 28 years, and $300,000 for future lost earnings over 18 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury found that this plaintiff was negligent, but his negligence was not a proximate cause of the injury. The jury also determined that defendant violated Labor Law § 241 (6). There was evidence that although the injured plaintiff acted in a negligent manner, the accident would not have occurred if defendant had provided the proper safety equipment. It thus cannot be said that there was “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational men to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented;at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]).

The award of $25,000 for past pain and suffering and $290,000 for future pain and suffering did not constitute a material deviation from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances, given the evidence demonstrating that the injured plaintiff suffered a comminuted trimalleolar fracture of the left ankle, requiring surgery. His leg was in a cast for three months, he required the use of crutches for one year and extensive physical therapy that will continue into the future, he has had numerous other injury-related complications, including an intraarticular fracture in the ankle joint, a fracture of the fibula, nerve damage, loss of sensation and motion, lower back pain, an antalgic gait, degenerative arthritis and osteoarthritis, and will require future surgery.

The award for lost earnings was supported by the evidence and was properly calculated by plaintiff’s expert economist. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

[283]*283Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered on or about September 11, 2003, which, after a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff Vicente Uriondo damages, including $25,000 for past pain and suffering, $290,000 for future pain and suffering over 28 years, and $300,000 for future lost earnings over 18 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury found that this plaintiff was negligent, but his negligence was not a proximate cause of the injury. The jury also determined that defendant violated Labor Law § 241 (6). There was evidence that although the injured plaintiff acted in a negligent manner, the accident would not have occurred if defendant had provided the proper safety equipment. It thus cannot be said that there was “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational men to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented;at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]).

The award of $25,000 for past pain and suffering and $290,000 for future pain and suffering did not constitute a material deviation from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances, given the evidence demonstrating that the injured plaintiff suffered a comminuted trimalleolar fracture of the left ankle, requiring surgery. His leg was in a cast for three months, he required the use of crutches for one year and extensive physical therapy that will continue into the future, he has had numerous other injury-related complications, including an intraarticular fracture in the ankle joint, a fracture of the fibula, nerve damage, loss of sensation and motion, lower back pain, an antalgic gait, degenerative arthritis and osteoarthritis, and will require future surgery.

The award for lost earnings was supported by the evidence and was properly calculated by plaintiff’s expert economist. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 282, 799 N.Y.S.2d 189, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uriondo-v-timberline-camplands-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack