Golden v. Condominium, 2614.

Citation770 N.Y.S.2d 55,2003 NY Slip Op 19868,2 A.D.3d 345
Decision Date30 December 2003
Docket Number2614.,2615.
PartiesJEAN S. GOLDEN et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. MANHASSET CONDOMINIUM et al., Appellants-Respondents, and ALLIED FIRE CONTROL SERVICES, INC., et al., Respondents-Appellants, and VILES CONTRACTING CORP. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. JEAN S. GOLDEN et al., Respondents, v. MANHASSET CONDOMINIUM et al., Appellants, and FIESTA MEXICANA, INC., Respondent, et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

An eight-alarm fire at 300 West 109th Street in Manhattan caused property damage and displacement of the residents, who were forced to vacate their apartments for approximately three years while the building underwent extensive repair and renovation. This negligence action was brought by the displaced residents against the building owners and managers, the restaurant where the fire started, companies involved in the installation, maintenance and repair of the restaurant's exhaust system, and contractors who had been performing work on the exterior facade and roof of the building. The jury at the bifurcated trial apportioned responsibility among those parties. Four of the five parties adjudged responsible appeal from that apportionment in the interlocutory judgment, and plaintiffs and 10 of the original defendants appeal and cross-appeal from the earlier order to the extent that their motions and cross motions for summary judgment with regard to claims and cross claims were denied. With regard to those defendants not found liable by the jury, their appeals from the earlier order have been rendered academic.

Loss of enjoyment of life is not a separate element of damages deserving a distinct award, but is only a factor to be considered by the jury in assessing damages for conscious pain and suffering (Nussbaum v Gibstein, 73 NY2d 912, 914 [1989]), thereby requiring a demonstration that plaintiffs have suffered some physical injury or pain. Plaintiffs may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Tuchman v. Deam Props. (Us), LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • April 25, 2014
    ...Inc., 85 A.D.3d 539, 541 (1st Dep't 2011); Bairushi v. Gomo Corp., 18 A.D.3d 240, 241 (1st Dep't 2005); Golden v. Manhasset Condominium, 2 A.D.3d 345, 347 (1st Dep't 2003). Although Everest Realty claims it satisfied its duty as a contractor when it informed Deam Properties of the leak, Eve......
  • Insilco Corporation v. Star Services, Inc. of Delaware
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 30, 2003

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