Vizzari v. State
Decision Date | 08 June 1992 |
Citation | 584 N.Y.S.2d 332,184 A.D.2d 564 |
Parties | Patsy VIZZARI, et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of New York, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
McGuirk, Levinson, Zeccola, Seaman, Reineke & Ornstein, P.C., Central Valley (Frank J. Zeccola and Anthony M. Giordano, of counsel), for appellants.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Weiner & Catlett, Nanuet [Richard J. Weiner, Philip
M. Morell, and Howard Stolzenberg], of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, MILLER and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), dated December 4, 1989, which, after a bifurcated nonjury trial, awarded the claimant Patsy Vizzari damages in the principal sum of only $120,000, and awarded the claimant Frances Vizzari damages in the principal sum of only $10,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The claimant Patsy Vizzari fell from a ladder and fractured his left hip while working at a construction site at the State University of New York at Purchase. In a bifurcated trial, the defendant State of New York was found liable for the accident pursuant to Labor Law § 240. Following a trial on the issue of damages, the court awarded the claimant Patsy Vizzari the principal sum of $120,000 and the claimant Frances Vizzari the principal sum of $10,000. In a written decision, the court divided the award into damages for lost wages and benefits, medical costs, pain and suffering, and loss of Patsy Vizzari's services. On appeal, the claimants contend that the Court of Claims erred in finding that there was insufficient medical testimony to causally link the accident to Patsy Vizzari's alleged back injury.
Contrary to the claimants' contentions, however, the court's written decision makes it clear that its determination was based upon factual conclusions arrived at by weighing the evidence presented by both parties. In such situations, this court will not disturb the court's findings and determinations unless they are against the weight of the evidence or contrary to law (see, Schock v. State of New York, 168 A.D.2d 491, 562 N.Y.S.2d 732; Ahnert v. State of New York, 127 A.D.2d 927, 512 N.Y.S.2d 285). A trial court's resolution of questions of credibility is particularly within its domain and should not be disturbed on appeal if supported by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Getty v. Tolentino
... ... & 10th Jud Dists 2020]; Gupta v ... Janiesch, 67 Misc.3d 135(A) [App Term, 9th ... & 10th Jud Dists 2020] (see also, Vizzari v. State of ... New York, 184 A.D.2d 564 [2ndDept 1992]; ... Kincade v. Kincade, 178 A.D.2d 510, 511 ... [2nd Dept 1991]; & Rotem ... ...
-
Consigliere v. Grandolfo
...Valetin Inc., 21 Misc.3d 128[A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 51962[U] [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 2008] ( see also, Vizzari v. State of New York, 184 A.D.2d 564 [2nd Dept 1992]; Kincade v. Kincade, 178 A.D.2d 510, 511 [2nd Dept 1991]; & Rotem v. Hochberg, 28 Misc.3d 127(A), Slip Copy, 2010 WL 2......
-
Allyn v. 131-151 Purchase St. Inv'r 1
...10th Jud Dists 2020]; Gupta v Janiesch, 67 Misc.3d 135(A) [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2020] (see also, Vizzari v. State of New York, 184 A.D.2d 564 [2ndDept 1992]; Kincade v. Kincade, 178 A.D.2d 510, 511 [2nd Dept 1991]; & Rotem v. Hochberg, 28 Misc.3d 127(A), 957 N.Y.S.2d 639 [App Term......
-
Hohenberger v. Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist.
...and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v. State of New York, 184 A.D.2d 564, 584 N.Y.S.2d 332 [1992] ; Kincade v. Kincade, 178 A.D.2d 510, 511, 577 N.Y.S.2d 436 [1991] ). This deference applies with greater force to ......