Belt v. Girgis

Decision Date22 March 2011
Citation920 N.Y.S.2d 151,82 A.D.3d 1028,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02340
PartiesNorma BELT, etc., respondent,v.Albert GIRGIS, et al., appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York, N.Y. (Iryna S. Krauchanka of counsel), for appellant Rasheen Ford.Fine, Olin & Anderman, LLP, Newburgh, N.Y. (Finkelstein & Partners LLP [Kara L. Campbell], of counsel), for respondent.REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, RANDALL T. ENG, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Rasheen Ford appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated October 22, 2009, as, upon a decision of the same court dated June 23, 2009, made after a nonjury trial, finding that the plaintiff sustained damages in the sums of $347,000 for past medical expenses, $12,045,000 for future medical expenses, $5,000,000 for past pain and suffering, and $10,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of $10,000,000 for punitive damages as against him, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $37,392,000, and the defendant Albert Girgis separately appeals from stated portions of the same judgment.

ORDERED that the appeal by the defendant Albert Girgis is dismissed as abandoned ( see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e][1] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from by the defendant Rasheen Ford, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the judgment is vacated insofar as it is against the defendant Albert Girgis, and a new trial is granted on the issues of damages for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering only, unless, within 30 days after service upon the plaintiff of a copy of this decision and order, she shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the damages for past medical expenses from the principal sum of $347,000 to the principal sum of $212,952, future medical expenses from the principal sum of $12,045,000 to the principal sum of $2,000,000, past pain and suffering from the principal sum of $5,000,000 to the principal sum of $2,000,000, and future pain and suffering from the principal sum of $10,000,000 to the principal sum of $3,000,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly; in the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment is modified by deleting the provision thereof awarding punitive damages in the sum of $10,000,000, and as so modified, reduced, and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence at this nonjury trial established that Rashawna Belt (hereinafter the plaintiff), on whose behalf the plaintiff Norma Belt commenced this action, was a pedestrian when she was struck by a vehicle owned by the defendant Albert Girgis and operated by the defendant Rasheen Ford.

As a result of the accident, the plaintiff was in a coma for approximately three weeks. She sustained, among other injuries, a left femoral fracture, a right clavicular fracture, laceration of the right anterior tibial area, a fracture of the right medial malleolus, a fracture of the pubic rami, and a severe head injury, including an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Turturro v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 1 Abril 2015
    ...future pain and suffering deviated materially from what would be reasonable under the circumstances (see CPLR 5501[c] ; Belt v. Girgis, 82 A.D.3d 1028, 920 N.Y.S.2d 151 ; Dockery v. Sprecher, 68 A.D.3d 1043, 1046–1047, 891 N.Y.S.2d 465 ; Benefield v. Halmar Corp., 25 A.D.3d 633, 635, 808 N.......
  • Jing Xue Jiang v. Dollar Rent a Car, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 10 Enero 2012
    ...suffering deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation under the circumstances ( see CPLR 5501[c]; Belt v. Girgis, 82 A.D.3d 1028, 1029, 920 N.Y.S.2d 151; Mohamed v. New York City Tr. Auth., 80 A.D.3d 677, 678, 915 N.Y.S.2d 599; Stanisich v. New York City Tr. Auth., 73 A.D......
  • Alexander v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 22 Marzo 2011
  • Cano v. Mid-Valley Oil Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 7 Junio 2017
    ...excessive to the extent indicated herein (see Bock v. City of Mount Vernon, 123 A.D.3d 644, 646, 997 N.Y.S.2d 684 ; Belt v. Girgis, 82 A.D.3d 1028, 1030, 920 N.Y.S.2d 151 ).In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties' remaining ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT