Wimbish v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wimbish v. New York City Transit Authority

305 A.D.2d 586, 759 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedMay 19, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 586 (Wimbish v. New York City Transit 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

Wimbish v. New York City Transit Authority, 305 A.D.2d 586, 759 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered March 25, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering.

[587]*587Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On September 13, 1993, the plaintiff was in her automobile waiting to make a left turn at an intersection when her vehicle was hit from behind and then sideswiped by a bus. As a result, she sustained herniated discs at levels C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6. The plaintiff commenced this action against the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the Transit Authority) and the bus driver. After a jury trial, the plaintiff was awarded $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the trial court properly admitted an internal memorandum prepared by the Transit Authority that provided a description of the accident and concluded that the damage to the vehicles was consistent with the plaintiffs version of the accident. The memorandum was not an internal rule, and did not refer to violations of any internal rules that imposed a duty of care on the Transit Authority greater than that required by common law (cf. Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 329 [1991]; Crosland v New York City Tr. Auth., 68 NY2d 165, 168-169 [1986]; Lesser v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 157 AD2d 352, 356 [1990] , affd sub nom. Fishman v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 79 NY2d 1031 [1992]; Ramirez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 258 AD2d 326, 327 [1999]).

The damage awards were not excessive. Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann and Crane, 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 defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered March 25, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering.

[587]*587Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On September 13, 1993, the plaintiff was in her automobile waiting to make a left turn at an intersection when her vehicle was hit from behind and then sideswiped by a bus. As a result, she sustained herniated discs at levels C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6. The plaintiff commenced this action against the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the Transit Authority) and the bus driver. After a jury trial, the plaintiff was awarded $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the trial court properly admitted an internal memorandum prepared by the Transit Authority that provided a description of the accident and concluded that the damage to the vehicles was consistent with the plaintiffs version of the accident. The memorandum was not an internal rule, and did not refer to violations of any internal rules that imposed a duty of care on the Transit Authority greater than that required by common law (cf. Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 329 [1991]; Crosland v New York City Tr. Auth., 68 NY2d 165, 168-169 [1986]; Lesser v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 157 AD2d 352, 356 [1990] , affd sub nom. Fishman v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 79 NY2d 1031 [1992]; Ramirez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 258 AD2d 326, 327 [1999]).

The damage awards were not excessive. Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 586, 759 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wimbish-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack