Carrasquillo v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 03 November 2010
• Citation: 910 N.Y.S.2d 526,78 A.D.3d 635
• Parties: Erica CARRASQUILLO, etc., et al., respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

910 N.Y.S.2d 526
78 A.D.3d 635

Erica CARRASQUILLO, etc., et al., respondents,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nov. 3, 2010.

910 N.Y.S.2d 526

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart,

910 N.Y.S.2d 527

Michael V. Reddy, Jr., and Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for appellants.

Bader Yakaitis & Nonnenmacher, New York, N.Y. (John J. Nonnenmacher and Jesse Young of counsel), for respondents.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, RUTH C. BALKIN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

78 A.D.3d 635

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated February 27, 2009, as (a) denied those branches of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which were, in effect, to set aside the jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law based on the plaintiffs' failure to establish a prima facie case, or to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, or to set aside the jury verdict on the ground that certain evidence and testimony were improperly precluded or admitted and for a new trial, (b) granted that branch of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the damages awards for past and future pain and suffering as excessive only to the extent of directing a new trial on the issue of those damages unless the plaintiffs stipulated to reduce the awards to the principal sums of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $900,000 for future pain and suffering, and (c) granted the plaintiffs' cross motion to impose sanctions upon them pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to the extent of directing them to pay the sum of $3,000 to the plaintiffs' attorney.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was, in effect, to set aside the jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law for the plaintiffs' failure to establish

78 A.D.3d 636

a prima facie case is granted, those branches of the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which were to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, or to set aside the jury verdict on the ground that certain evidence and testimony were improperly precluded or admitted and for a new trial, and to set aside the damages awards for past and future pain and suffering as excessive are denied as academic, and the plaintiffs' cross motion to impose sanctions upon the defendants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 is denied.

The infant plaintiff, then six years old, was injured when she fell from a six-foot ladder at a municipal playground. The accident occurred on a piece of playground equipment that was located approximately 60 feet away from a series of spray sprinklers. Just before the infant climbed the ladder, a group of children, who had previously been playing in the sprinklers, ascended the structure and dripped water onto the rungs of ladder. According to the plaintiffs, the ladder then became wet and slippery, a condition which ultimately led to the infant plaintiff falling off the ladder. The complaint against the defendants alleged negligence in the maintenance and/or design of the ladder and playground.

At trial, the plaintiffs contended that the defendants were negligent in failing to install or maintain a ladder that was slip resistant under wet and dry conditions. In support of this claim, they introduced a 1981...