Summary
In Baez v Dombroff (142 AD2d 705, 706), as a result of malpractice during a breast reduction operation, Irma Baez's breasts became heavily scarred, misshapen, and uneven, and her nipples became misshapen, discolored, and cracked.
Summary of this case from Dehaarte v. RamenovskyOpinion
July 25, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the judgment was superseded by the order setting aside the judgment; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, by deleting from the second decretal paragraph thereof the words "One Million Five Hundred Thousand 00/100 ($1,500,000.00) Dollars" and substituting therefor the words "Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand ($750,000) Dollars"; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and Baez's time to file a written stipulation consenting to decrease the verdict in her favor to the principal sum of $750,000 with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is extended until 30 days after the service upon her of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry.
The plaintiffs commenced this action based on medical malpractice to recover damages for injuries sustained from a breast reduction operation performed upon Irma Baez by the appellant. During the trial the appellant conceded liability and the trial continued solely on the issue of damages. As a result of the malpractice, Baez's breasts are heavily scarred, misshapen and uneven. In addition, her nipples are also misshapen, discolored and crooked. Psychological damages suffered by Baez include fears of contact with people, of leaving her home and of anyone seeing her breasts as they now appear. The jury returned a verdict of $2,625,000 which the court reduced to $1,500,000. We agree with the appellant's contention that $1,500,000 is excessive and disproportionate to the injury suffered by Baez. While Baez has suffered physiological and psychological damage as a result of the appellant's malpractice, it cannot be said that her loss justified such an award (cf., Gallo v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 112 A.D.2d 345, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 605). Upon consideration of Baez's injuries, we find that an award of $750,000 is justified (see, Suria v. Shiffman, 107 A.D.2d 309, mod 67 N.Y.2d 87, rearg denied 67 N.Y.2d 918; Van Syckle v Powers, 106 A.D.2d 711, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 609; Bellier v Bazan, 124 Misc.2d 1055, affd 115 A.D.2d 1016). Kunzeman, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.