Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


January 27, 2009

SAMEE M. SMITH, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered October 25, 2007, upon a jury verdict awarding plaintiff $100,000 for past pain and suffering and $800,000 for future pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick, DeGrasse, JJ.

17195/01

The trial evidence established that plaintiff suffered severe damage to her left knee, including tears of the medial and lateral menisci, a torn ligament, torn cartilage in various places, and damage to the patella, with permanent osteochondral defect. She underwent arthroscopic surgery some months after the accident, and, while her knee improved to some degree, it never functioned normally again. Indeed, plaintiff continued to experience chronic pain, swelling and buckling of the knee, and her treating orthopedic surgeon, who testified at trial as her expert witness, recommended a second arthroscopic surgery. The surgeon testified that the injuries to plaintiff's knees were permanent and would continue to progress, and that arthritic changes would probably develop, requiring further surgical procedures, including perhaps knee replacement. The damages awarded to plaintiff for past and future pain and suffering in connection with the foregoing injuries do not "deviate[] materially from what would be reasonable compensation" (CPLR 5501[c]; see e.g. Urbina v 26 Ct. St. Assoc., LLC, 46 AD3d 268 [2007]; Nassour v City of New York, 35 AD3d 556 [2006]; Calzado v New York City Tr. Auth., 304 AD2d 385 [2003]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20090127

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.