From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lemlek v. Israel

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 11, 1991
577 N.E.2d 1041 (N.Y. 1991)

Opinion

Argued April 25, 1991

Decided June 11, 1991

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Herbert Shapiro, J.

George D. Salerno for appellant.

Albert E. Silbowitz and Sebastian Randazzo for Adele Lemlek, respondent.

Howard R. Cohen and Maureen C. O'Neill for Hospital for Joint Diseases Orthopedic Institute, respondent.



MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to defendant Israel against plaintiff, by ordering a new trial as to damages, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to defendant Hospital for Joint Diseases Orthopedic Institute against defendant Israel.

The Appellate Division correctly held that the jury's findings of liability on the part of defendant Israel and no liability on the part of defendant hospital were sufficiently supported by the evidence, but that the finding of comparative fault on the part of plaintiff was without support in the record.

Nevertheless, a new trial on the issue of damages is required because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it could award damages for loss of enjoyment of life separately from any award of damages for pain and suffering (see, McDougald v Garber, 73 N.Y.2d 246; Nussbaum v Gibstein, 73 N.Y.2d 912).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE and HANCOCK, JR., concur in memorandum; Judge BELLACOSA taking no part.

Order modified, etc.


Summaries of

Lemlek v. Israel

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 11, 1991
577 N.E.2d 1041 (N.Y. 1991)
Case details for

Lemlek v. Israel

Case Details

Full title:ADELE LEMLEK, Respondent, v. ROBERT M. ISRAEL, Appellant, and HOSPITAL FOR…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 11, 1991

Citations

577 N.E.2d 1041 (N.Y. 1991)
577 N.E.2d 1041
573 N.Y.S.2d 449

Citing Cases

Seligson, Rothman Rothman v. Gallin Newman

The court finds that the express condition was not met because the Court of Appeals properly reversed and…