From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1998
250 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 18, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).


Order that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and a new trial is granted on the issue of damages only, unless within 30 days after service upon the plaintiffs of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, the plaintiffs shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages for future pain and suffering from the sum of $500,000 to the sum of $300,000, and to reduce the verdict as to future medical expenses from the sum of $250,000 to the sum of $10,000, and to the entry of an appropriate amended judgment in their favor; in the event that the plaintiffs so stipulate, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment accordingly.

The infant plaintiff sustained second and third degree burns to her right leg when it became caught between two exposed steam pipes in her bedroom. The burns required a skin graft operation and resulted in a keloid scar.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions on appeal, the verdict as to liability was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendant from seeking contribution from the infant plaintiff's mother on a theory of negligent supervision ( see, LaTorre v. Genesee Mgt., 90 N.Y.2d 576; Nolechek v. Gesuale, 46 N.Y.2d 332).

However, the award of future medical expenses and the award for future pain and suffering was excessive to the extent indicated herein, in that it deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation ( see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Lyall v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 566; O'Brien v. Covert, 187 A.D.2d 419).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brown v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1998
250 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Brown v. New York City Housing Authority

Case Details

Full title:ZAIMAH BROWN et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 18, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
673 N.Y.S.2d 446

Citing Cases

Weigl v. Quincy Specialties Company

Plaintiff had second and third degree burns to fifteen percent of his body, including legs and buttocks, was…

Weigl v. QUINCY SPECIALTIES

In contrast, awards in the lower range of $1,000,000 and below were cited by defendant. (See, Duzon v State…