From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diaw v. Hegmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 10, 2000
276 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

October 10, 2000.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered April 1, 1999, upon a jury verdict in this personal injury action in plaintiff's favor in the amount of $60,000 for past pain and suffering but $0 for future pain and suffering, awarding plaintiff the total sum of $66,599.88 against defendants Alioune Ndiaye and The City of New York, unanimously modified, on the facts, to remand the matter for a new trial only on the issue of damages for pain and suffering and otherwise affirmed, without costs, unless within 30 days of entry of this order defendants-respondents stipulate to increase the verdict to $200,000 for past pain and suffering and $100,000 for future pain and suffering and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith.

Martin S. Rothman, for plaintiff-appellant.

Marshall D. Sweetbaum, Fay Ng, for defendants-respondents.

Before: Sullivan, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Rubin, Andrias, JJ.


Upon review of the record, we find the verdict deviates materially from what is reasonable compensation for plaintiff in these circumstances and increase the verdict to the extent indicated. We have considered plaintiff's remaining contention and find it unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Diaw v. Hegmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 10, 2000
276 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Diaw v. Hegmann

Case Details

Full title:CHIMERE DIAW, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EUGENE HEGMANN, DEFENDANT, AND…

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

Date published: Oct 10, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 208

Citing Cases

Flaherty v. American Turners N.Y

Accordingly, the jury had ample evidence to conclude that defendant exercised control over the area where…