Korn v. Levick

Decision Date23 September 1996
Citation647 N.Y.S.2d 808,231 A.D.2d 606
PartiesNaomi KORN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Edward L. LEVICK, Defendant-Appellant, Steven Heissenhuber, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Rivkin, Radler & Kremer, Uniondale (Evan H. Krinick and Cheryl F. Korman, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Kahn & Gordon, New York City (Myron Kahn, of counsel), and Seligson, Rothman & Rothman, New York City (Martin S. Rothman and Alyne I. Diamond, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent (one brief filed).

Curtis, Zaklukiewicz, Vasile, Devine & McElhenny, Merrick (Thomas P. Lalor, of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and LUCIANO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Edward L. Levick appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated March 2, 1995, which denied his motion to (a) set aside the jury verdict finding him 100% at fault in the happening of the accident on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and (b) reduce the verdict on damages, and (2) from a judgment of the same court, also dated March 2, 1995, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Edward L. Levick in the principal sum of $3,500,000 ($500,000 for past pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering, $1,500,000 for future medical expenses, and $500,000 for future lost earnings).

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, with costs and a new trial is granted upon the issue of damages only, unless within 30 days after service upon the plaintiff of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry, the plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages from the sum of $3,500,000 to the sum of $1,130,000 ($350,000 for past pain and suffering, $350,000 for future pain and suffering, $0 for future lost earnings, and $430,000 for future medical expenses), and to the entry of an amended judgment in the principal sum of $1,130,000 accordingly. In the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501[a][1].

The jury's finding that the defendant Edward L. Levick was 100% at fault in the happening of the accident which caused the plaintiff's injuries is not against the weight of the evidence (see, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184). Furthermore, the jury's finding that the defendant Steven Heissenhuber was negligent, but that his negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident, is not inconsistent under the facts and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Marcoux v. Farm Service and Supplies, Inc., 02 CIV. 5299(WCC).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 14, 2003
    ...that potential future surgery, follow-up medical appointments and MRIs would cost approximately $53,400); Korn v. Levick, 231 A.D.2d 606, 607, 647 N.Y.S.2d 808 (2d Dep't 1996) (ordering remittitur of a $1,500,000 future medical expense award to $430,000 when evidence at trial indicated that......
  • Maharam v. Maharam
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 9, 1997
    ...Kamen, 163 A.D.2d 58, 559 N.Y.S.2d 633). We find that the award of future medical care costs was not "speculative" (cf., Korn v. Levick, 231 A.D.2d 606, 647 N.Y.S.2d 808); that the verdict adequately compensates plaintiff for "future pain and suffering associated" with the relevant injury (......
  • Lewis v. Jamesway Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 25, 2002
    ...the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241; Korn v Levick, 231 A.D.2d 606). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the order and judgment......
  • Figueroa v. HLM Elec., Ltd.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 29, 2014
    ...677, 679, 915 N.Y.S.2d 599 ; Firmes v. Chase Manhattan Auto. Fin. Corp., 50 A.D.3d 18, 28–29, 852 N.Y.S.2d 148 ; Korn v. Levick, 231 A.D.2d 606, 607, 647 N.Y.S.2d 808 ; Sanvenero v. Cleary, 225 A.D.2d 755, 756, 640 N.Y.S.2d 174 ).IG's remaining contentions are without ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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