Grcic v. City of New York, 1
| Decision Date | 18 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 4,No. 2,No. 3,No. 1,1,2,3,4 |
| Citation | 139 A.D.2d 621,527 N.Y.S.2d 263 |
| Parties | Bronko GRCIC, etc., Plaintiffs-Respondents, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant-Respondent, Thomas Dukes, et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action) John CROZIER, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant-Respondent, v. Thomas Dukes, et al., Respondents-Appellants, Bronko Grcic, et al., Defendants-Respondents, et al., Defendants. (Action) Todd POSKITT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant-Respondent, Thomas Dukes, Sr., et al., Respondents-Appellants, Borislav Grcic, et al., Defendants-Respondents, et al., Defendants. (Action) James DUFFY, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant-Respondent, Thomas Dukes, Sr., et al., Respondents-Appellants, Borislav Grcic, et al., Defendants-Respondents, et al., Defendants. (Action) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Peter L. Zimroth, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Leonard Koerner, Stephen J. McGrath and Ellen B. Fishman, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Rivkin, Radler, Dunne & Bayh, Uniondale (Frank L. Amoroso, David P. Franks and Thomas J. McGowan, of counsel), for respondent-appellant Thomas Dukes, Jr.
Morris & Duffy, New York City (Patricia D'Alvia, Andrea M. Alonso and Irwin H. Haut, of counsel), for respondent-appellant Thomas Dukes, Sr.
Teitler & Teitler, New York City (Michael F. Teitler, Sanford A. Bell and Matthew J. Chachere, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent in Action No. 1.
O'Leary & O'Leary, Manhasset (Robert X. Larkin, of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents in Action No. 2.
Lipsig, Sullivan & Liapakis, P.C., New York City (Harry H. Lipsig and Cheryl Eisberg Moin, of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents in Action Nos. 3 and 4.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, RUBIN and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
(1) In Action No. 1, (a) the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), entered August 1, 1986, as amended March 3, 1987, as upon a finding that it was 93% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff Bronko Grcic and against it in the principal sum of $15,975,645 and (b) the defendants Thomas Dukes, Sr., and Thomas Dukes, Jr., separately cross-appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of the same judgment as amended, as upon a finding that they were 7% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff Bronko Grcic and against them in the principal sum of $15,975,645, (2) in Action No. 2, (a) the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), entered September 10, 1986, as amended March 3, 1987, as upon a finding that it was 93% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff John Crozier and against it in the principal sum of $100,000, and is in favor of the plaintiff James Matuozzi and against it in the principal sum of $50,000, and (b) the defendants Thomas Dukes, Sr., and Thomas Dukes, Jr., separately cross-appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of the same judgment, as amended, as upon a finding that they were 7% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff Crozier and against them in the principal sum of $100,000 and is in favor of the plaintiff Matuozzi and against them in the principal sum of $50,000, (3) in Action No. 3, (a) the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from (a) so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), entered August 12, 1986, as amended April 1, 1987, as upon a finding that it was 93% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff Poskitt and against it in the principal sum of $400,000, and (b) the defendants Thomas Dukes Sr., and Thomas Dukes Jr., separately cross-appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of the same judgment, as amended, as upon a finding that they were 7% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff Poskitt and against them in the principal sum of $400,000, and (4) in Action No. 4, the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from (a) so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), entered August 12, 1986, as amended March 3, 1987, as upon a finding that it was 93% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff Duffy and against it in the principal sums of $670,000 for conscious pain and suffering and $100,000 for wrongful death, and (b) the defendants Thomas Dukes Jr. and Thomas Dukes Sr., separately cross-appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of the same judgment, as amended, as upon a finding that they were 7% at fault in the happening of this accident, is in favor of the plaintiff Duffy and against them in the principal sums of $670,000 for conscious pain and suffering and $100,000 for wrongful death.
ORDERED that no costs or disbursements are awarded with respect to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benjamin v. City of N.Y.
...however, there are no other substantially similar details such that the notice requirement can be proven. Grcic v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 621, 527 N.Y.S.2d 263 (2d Dept.1988). Specifically, the prior accident occurred during clear weather, at dawn on a dry roadway. The relevant detail......
-
Datskow v. Teledyne Continental Motors, No. 88-CV-1299L.
...where the injured party lapsed into coma almost immediately after injury." (Citations omitted). Similarly, in Grcic v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 621, 527 N.Y.S.2d 263 (2d Dep't), motion denied, 73 N.Y.2d 702, 536 N.Y.S.2d 743, 533 N.E.2d 673 (1988), the court held that although the evide......
-
Marigliano v. City of New York
...Eichler's breath, particularly in summation (see, Mercedes v. Amusements of Am., 160 A.D.2d 630, 559 N.Y.S.2d 252; Grcic v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 621, 527 N.Y.S.2d 263). Based upon this improperly admitted evidence, about which the court never instructed the jury as to its significan......
-
Arpino v. Jovin C. Lombardo, P.C.
...in this case (see, Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 517, 429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 407 N.E.2d 451; Grcic v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 621, 625, 527 N.Y.S.2d 263). Likewise, the court correctly denied the appellants' request for a missing witness charge with respect to the examining......
-
17.2 B. Medical Office Records
...in the report in propounding hypothetical questions to one of defendant’s medical experts was proper).[424] . Grcic v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 621, 527 N.Y.S.2d 263 (2d Dep’t 1988) (motor-vehicle accident case). [425] . Stevens v. Brown, 249 A.D.2d 909, 672 N.Y.S.2d 194 (4th Dep’t 1998......