Pavia v. Rosato
| Decision Date | 16 October 1989 |
| Citation | 546 N.Y.S.2d 140,154 A.D.2d 519 |
| Parties | Frank PAVIA, Respondent-Appellant, v. Carmine ROSATO, et al., Appellants-Respondents, Joseph Amerosa, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Mineola (Jeffrey G. Stark of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Richard J. Sgarlato, P.C., Staten Island (Schapiro & Reich [Steven M. Schapiro and Perry S. Reich] of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and THOMPSON, KUNZEMAN and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Carmine Rosato and Joann Rosato appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), entered April 6, 1988, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the principal sum of $5,000,000, representing $2,120,000 as damages for conscious pain and suffering, $2,318,000 for past and future medical expenses, and $562,000 for loss of earnings, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same judgment as, upon a ruling denying his application for leave to amend the ad damnum clause of his complaint, reduced the jury verdict in his favor from $6,322,000 to $5,000,000, which represented the amount requested in the ad damnum clause.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, by reducing the principal sum awarded to the plaintiff to $2,880,000, representing damages for past and future medical expenses, and for loss of earnings, and adding thereto a provision severing the plaintiff's claim for damages for conscious pain and suffering, and granting a new trial with respect thereto, unless the plaintiff shall serve and file in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, a written stipulation consenting to decrease the award for damages for conscious pain and suffering from the principal sum of $2,120,000 to the principal sum of $1,000,000 and to the entry of the amended judgment accordingly; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiff's time to serve and file a stipulation is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry. In the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff was injured when the car in which he was a passenger was involved in an accident. His injuries include permanent paralysis, spasticity of his left side, and a severe speech impairment. Liability is not an issue on appeal. Following a trial on the issue of damages, the jury rendered a verdict awarding the plaintiff $2,120,000 for conscious pain and suffering, $3,640,000 for past and future medical expenses and $562,000 for past and future lost earnings. The court thereafter limited the jury award to the principal sum of $5,000,000, which sum represented the amount requested in the ad damnum clause of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sales v. Republic of Uganda, 90 Civ. 3972 (CSH).
...paralysis and requiring extensive treatment, permanent limp and eye damage resulting in double vision); Pavia v. Rosato, 154 A.D.2d 519, 546 N.Y.S.2d 140 (2d Dep't 1989) (Appellate Division finds $2,120,000 excessive to extent it exceeds $1,000,000 for injuries including permanent paralysis......
-
Pavia v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...and the Appellate Division modified that judgment by further reducing the verdict to $3,880,000 upon plaintiff's stipulation (154 A.D.2d 519, 546 N.Y.S.2d 140). The Rosatos subsequently assigned all causes of action they might have against State Farm to plaintiff by executing an assignment ......
-
Pavia v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...directing a new trial as to damages unless Pavia stipulated to a further reduction in the verdict to $3,880,000 (see, Pavia v. Rosato, 154 A.D.2d 519, 546 N.Y.S.2d 140). In April 1988 the Rosatos assigned "all causes of action" they might have against State Farm to Frank Pavia. Pavia, toget......
-
Sullivan v. Locastro
...will not "deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation" if reduced from $2,500,000 to $1,500,000 (cf., Pavia v. Rosato, 154 A.D.2d 519, 546 N.Y.S.2d 140; Mesick v. State of New York, 118 A.D.2d 214, 504 N.Y.S.2d 279; Poulos v. City of New York, 99 A.D.2d 709, 472 N.Y.S.2d 3......