Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ANSONIA ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Federal Insurance Company, Defendant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered January 20, 2000, upon a jury verdict, which, inter alia, entitled plaintiff to recover the total amount of $1,212,020.48 from defendant Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (PSM), unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The arguments by defendant PSM regarding the alleged inability of plaintiff to recover on a claim of bad faith against PSM, predicated only upon plaintiff's exposure to punitive damages in the underlying action, as well as PSM's argument that plaintiff cannot recover due to the fact that the policy prohibited plaintiff from settling the underlying action without PSM's consent, were previously addressed and rejected by this Court on PSM's appeal from the denial of its motion for summary judgment (Ansonia Assocs. Ltd. Partnership v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 257 A.D.2d 84, 692 N.Y.S.2d 5).
Furthermore, the reasonableness of the settlement amount imposed on PSM in the underlying action was sufficiently established at trial. Contrary to PSM's contentions, in addition to other evidence of damages, there was evidence that one plaintiff suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, and that the decedent experienced severe pain and suffering for 18 to 25 minutes as she slowly asphyxiated. This evidence of pain and suffering alone would support a substantial damage award (see, Ramos v. La Montana Moving & Storage, 247 A.D.2d 333, 669 N.Y.S.2d 529).
The court also properly denied PSM's motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, since plaintiff had no intention of calling counsel to testify and PSM failed to demonstrate that the attorney's testimony was necessary (see, S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S.H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437, 445-446, 515 N.Y.S.2d 735, 508 N.E.2d 647). PSM also failed to demonstrate that counsel's testimony, when called by PSM to testify, was prejudicial to plaintiff (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102[d] [22 NYCRR § 1200.21(d) ] ).
We have examined PSM's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 16, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)