Zizo v. Sea Cliff Woodshop, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zizo v. Sea Cliff Woodshop, Inc.

279 A.D.2d 626, 719 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 942

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 29, 2001·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Sea Cliff Woodshop, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered November 16, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $550,000 for future pain and suffering, and $100,000 for vocational rehabilitation, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury verdict awarding damages is not against the weight of the evidence as it is based upon a fair interpretation of the [627] evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). The damages awarded did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Harris v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 272 AD2d 372; Tuitt v Midwood Auto Rental & Leasing Corp., 269 AD2d 525; Seidner v Unger, 245 AD2d 362).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller 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 Sea Cliff Woodshop, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered November 16, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $550,000 for future pain and suffering, and $100,000 for vocational rehabilitation, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The jury verdict awarding damages is not against the weight of the evidence as it is based upon a fair interpretation of the [627] evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). The damages awarded did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Harris v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 272 AD2d 372; Tuitt v Midwood Auto Rental & Leasing Corp., 269 AD2d 525; Seidner v Unger, 245 AD2d 362).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Zizo v. Sea Cliff Woodshop, Inc., 279 A.D.2d 626, 719 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

279 A.D.2d 626 (Zizo v. Sea Cliff Woodshop, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related