From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McFarland v. Makowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 5, 1985
112 A.D.2d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

August 5, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).


Judgment reversed, on the facts, with costs to the plaintiff, and new trial granted on the issue of damages only, unless within 30 days after service upon her of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry, the defendant shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, a written stipulation consenting to increase the amount of the verdict in favor of the plaintiff to $30,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly. In the event that the defendant so stipulates, then the judgment, as so modified, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs to the plaintiff.

In general, in order to warrant interference with a jury's assessment of damages, the excessiveness or inadequacy of the award must be such as to shock the conscience of the court ( Petosa v. City of New York, 63 A.D.2d 1016; O'Connor v. Roth, 104 A.D.2d 933, appeal dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 934). After being bitten on the right hand by a dog, this 71-year-old plaintiff underwent two skin graft operations, and now has an unsightly scarred area on her hand, which includes a permanent depressed area and some swelling. She has lost 30% to 40% of the normal utility of her thumb, can no longer oppose her thumb and little finger, and has a reduced ability to grip objects. After deducting the amounts stipulated to by the parties for medical expenses ($3,623.55) and lost wages ($306.52), the jury awarded the plaintiff some $6,000 for her pain and suffering. On this record, we conclude that this award was so inadequate as to shock the conscience of this court to the extent indicated.

Under the circumstances of this case, we do not find that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to allow plaintiff's attorney to place his opinion as to the amount of his client's damages before the jury during summation. Gibbons, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McFarland v. Makowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 5, 1985
112 A.D.2d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

McFarland v. Makowski

Case Details

Full title:AGNES E. McFARLAND, Appellant, v. IRENE MAKOWSKI, Respondent

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

Date published: Aug 5, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Wojtowicz v. New York City Health Hospitals

The issue of liability, however, is not raised on appeal. The issue before this court is whether Trial Term…

Scheu v. High-Forest Corp.

In regard to this appeal, we are also requested to consider the damages as inadequate as a matter of law.…