Carter v. City of New Rochelle
| Citation | 208 A.D.3d 843,173 N.Y.S.3d 662 |
| Decision Date | 31 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2019–12520, 2019–14686,Index No. 55298/13 |
| Parties | Edward Clinton CARTER, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
208 A.D.3d 843
173 N.Y.S.3d 662
Edward Clinton CARTER, appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE, et al., respondents.
2019–12520, 2019–14686
Index No. 55298/13
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—June 23, 2022
August 31, 2022
William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (Howard R. Cohen and D. Allen Zachary of counsel), for appellant.
O'Connor McGuinness Conte Doyle Oleson Watson & Loftus, LLP, White Plains, NY (Heather M. Haralambides of counsel), for respondents City of New Rochelle and Robert Boyko.
Scahill Law Group, P.C., Bethpage, NY (Gerard Ferrara of counsel), for respondents Louis Santiago and Catalino Ramos.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, PAUL WOOTEN, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gerald E. Loehr, J.), dated October 11, 2019, and (2) an order of the same court dated December 13, 2019. The order dated October 11, 2019, denied the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict awarding him damages in the principal sums of
only $5,000 for past pain and suffering, $10,000 for past medical expenses, $0 for future pain and suffering, and $0 for future medical expenses, as, inter alia, inadequate and contrary to the weight of the evidence, and for a new trial on the issue of damages. The order dated December 13, 2019, insofar as appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to the determination in the order dated October 11, 2019.
ORDERED that the order dated October 11, 2019, is reversed, on the facts, the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict awarding him damages in the principal sums of only $5,000 for past pain and suffering, $10,000 for past medical expenses, $0 for future pain and suffering, and $0 for future medical expenses and for a new trial on the issue of damages is granted, the order dated December 13, 2019, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme
Court, Westchester County, for a new trial on the issue of damages and for the entry of an appropriate judgment thereafter, unless, within 30 days after service upon the defendants of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry, the defendants serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, a written stipulation consenting to increase the damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ramirez
...176, 592 N.E.2d 784 ), the record here does not support the notion that either face coverings, or spacing due to social distancing, 173 N.Y.S.3d 662 interfered with, or deprived, the defendant of the ability to observe potential jurors, or to otherwise assess their facial expressions and de......
-
Brunson v. Korkovilas
...collision (see Wiessner v. Phillips, 201 A.D.3d 776, 777, 156 N.Y.S.3d 914 ; Joseph v. Kelly, 178 A.D.3d 1028, 1029, 115 N.Y.S.3d 404 ; 208 A.D.3d 843 Bermejo v. Khaydarov, 155 A.D.3d 597, 598, 63 N.Y.S.3d 107 ; Calderon–Scotti v. Rosenstein, 119 A.D.3d 722, 724, 989 N.Y.S.2d 514 ). Additio......