From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Anastasopoulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 22, 1996
229 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

July 22, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and as an exercise 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, Queens County, a written stipulation consenting to decrease the verdict for past pain and suffering from the sum of $600,000 to $300,000, and for future pain and suffering from the sum of $3,000,000 to $1,700,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly. In the event that the plaintiffs so stipulate, the judgment, as so decreased and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment accordingly.

There was sufficient evidence as a matter of law to support the jury's liability verdict against the defendant Irene Anastasopoulos ( see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 498-499; see also, Fried v. Korn, 286 App. Div. 107, 109, affd 1 N.Y.2d 691; Johnson v. Elliott, 95 A.D.2d 874, 875; Breese v. Hertz Corp., 25 A.D.2d 621, 622).

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' request for a missing witness charge ( see, PJI 1:75) since the testimony of the injured plaintiff's treating physicians would have been merely cumulative ( see, Kane v. Linsky, 156 A.D.2d 333, 334; Levande v. Dines, 153 A.D.2d 671, 672; Getlin v. St. Vincent's Hosp. Med. Ctr., 117 A.D.2d 707, 708).

The damages that were awarded for past and future pain and suffering are excessive to the extent indicated because they deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances of this case ( see, CPLR 5501 [c]; see generally, Lemberger v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 622; Ames v City of New York, 177 A.D.2d 528; Blyskal v. Kelleher, 171 A.D.2d 718).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the appellants' remaining contention. O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jones v. Anastasopoulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 22, 1996
229 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Jones v. Anastasopoulos

Case Details

Full title:DWAYNE JONES, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, RUTH JONES…

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

Date published: Jul 22, 1996

Citations

229 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
645 N.Y.S.2d 840

Citing Cases

Maldonado v. New York City Transit Authority

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its request for a missing witness…