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.
Vanessa SALAZAR, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. B.R. FRIES AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-Respondent, K-Mart Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. [And A Third-Party Action.]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Ferradino, J.), entered April 24, 1997, after a jury trial, which apportioned liability 100% against defendant K-Mart corporation, and awarded plaintiff the total amount of $519,062.21, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In this personal injury action, the trial court's charge regarding intervening and superseding negligence (see, Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166, 414 N.E.2d 666) was proper in light of evidence that the handrail upon which plaintiff sustained her injury was redamaged by K-Mart employees, with the knowledge of K-Mart management, subsequent to its repair by defendant B.R. Fries. Nor did the trial court err by permitting the receipt in evidence of five photographs of plaintiff shortly after her accident. The probative value of such evidence, admitted to assist the jury in its assessment of the medical testimony and of plaintiff's pain and suffering, outweighed its potential for prejudice (see, Harvey v. Mazal American Partners, 79 N.Y.2d 218, 224, 581 N.Y.S.2d 639, 590 N.E.2d 224; see also, Axelrod v. Rosenbaum, 205 A.D.2d 722, 723, 613 N.Y.S.2d 707).
K-Mart's failure to object to the jury charge or verdict sheet renders its argument respecting duplicative pain and suffering awards unpreserved for appellate review (see, Malki v. Krieger, 213 A.D.2d 331, 334-35, 624 N.Y.S.2d 167). In any event, the award for conscious pain and suffering did not deviate materially from reasonable compensation (see, Morales v. Jolee Consolidators, Inc., 173 A.D.2d 315, 569 N.Y.S.2d 699), in view of the testimony regarding the reimplantation of plaintiff's middle finger on her dominant hand, and her scarring and diminished sensation and motion.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: June 23, 1998
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)