DiCamillo v. City of New York
| Citation | 245 A.D.2d 332,665 N.Y.S.2d 97 |
| Parties | , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,554 Livio DiCAMILLO, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1997 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York City (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Julian L. Kalkstein, of counsel), for appellant.
Dinkes & Morelli, New York City (Andrea Green and David Ratner, of counsel), for respondents.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, SANTUCCI and LUCIANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J., at trial on liability; Lisa, J., at trial on damages), dated August 14, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant 60% at fault in the happening of the accident and the plaintiff Livio DiCamillo 40% at fault in the happening of the accident, and upon an order of the same court (Lisa, J.), dated June 11, 1996, granting a new trial unless the plaintiffs stipulated to decrease the award for past pain and suffering from $1,000,000 to $500,000, the award for future pain and suffering from $1,500,000 to $1,000,000, and the award for future loss of services from $50,000 to $10,000, while not disturbing the award of $33,700 for future medical expenses, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the principal sum of $926,220 ($1,543,700 reduced by 40%).
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the order dated June 11, 1996, is vacated, and a new trial is granted on the issues of both liability and damages, with costs to abide the event.
At the trial on the issue of liability in this slip and fall case, the City of New York attempted to introduce into evidence a letter which the plaintiffs' attorney had sent to the Big Apple Pothole Corporation prior to commencement of the lawsuit. In that letter, the plaintiffs' attorney asked that a search be conducted to determine if any notices of defective conditions existed in connection with the injured plaintiff's accident, which was described as being at a location other than the location where the injured plaintiff alleged he had fallen in his complaint and at trial. The letter was crucial to the City's defense, because the City had no notice of a defect at the location of the injured plaintiff's accident as recited in the letter. The City did, however, have notice of a defect at the location where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCracken v. Verisma Sys., Inc.
... ... No. 6:14cv06248(MAT). United States District Court, W.D. New York. Signed Sept. 16, 2015. 131 F.Supp.3d 41 Kai H. Richter, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, ... all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." 131 F.Supp.3d 43 Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). "While a ... ...
-
Rosario v. Montalvo & Son Auto Repair Center, Ltd.
...that constituted a judicial admission (see Naughton v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 1, 12, 940 N.Y.S.2d 21 ; DiCamillo v. City of New York, 245 A.D.2d 332, 333, 665 N.Y.S.2d 97 ). Accordingly, the trial court should not have granted Montalvo's trial motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7).Accordi......
-
Quashi G. v. Children's Vill. (In re Rashi-Malik Olatunji G.)
...836 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1st Dept.2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 878, 842 N.Y.S.2d 791, 874 N.E.2d 758 [2007] ; DiCamillo v. City of New York, 245 A.D.2d 332, 333, 665 N.Y.S.2d 97 [2d Dept.1997] ). Furthermore, he may not now seek a hearing on the issue, as he did not seek one before the Family Court, ......
-
Blanchard v. Blanchard, 2004 NY Slip Op 51079(U) (NY 9/8/2004)
...in an attempt to settle or compromise a matter on behalf of his or her client has been held admissible. See e.g., DiCamillo v. City of New York, 245 A.D.2d 332 (2nd Dept. 1997); Bellino v. Bellino Constr. Co., 75 A.D.2d 630 (2nd Dept. 1980); see also, Richardson, Evidence (Prince,, 10th Ed,......