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.
Estaban Reyes NEVAREZ, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents, Union Hospital, Defendant-Respondent, Carlos Mendez, M.D., Defendant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bernard Burstein, J., at trial; Stanley Green, J., on certain motions after trial), entered on or about September 18, 1998, in a medical malpractice action, awarding the infant plaintiff, inter alia, damages as against defendant Union Hospital with postjudgment interest only, and damages as against defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation in the principal amount of $2,085,257.33, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the award of damages as against NYCHHC, remand to the IAS court for settlement of a new judgment awarding damages as against NYCHHC based upon the present value of the awards of future damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeals from various other judgments and orders unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in or superceded by the appeal from the September 18, 1998 judgment.
Union Hospital's motion to vacate the award of prejudgment interest as against it contained in the March 6, 1998 judgment was not procedurally defective (see, Karlin v. Bridges, 172 A.D.2d 644, 568 N.Y.S.2d 444), and the grant thereof is affirmed.
We agree with the IAS court that the stipulation entered into by plaintiff and Union Hospital was a covenant not to sue or enforce a judgment under General Obligations Law § 15-108, and, accordingly, NYCHHC was properly granted a credit for Union Hospital's one-third liability and can be held liable to plaintiff only for its own one-third share. However, the IAS court erred in not reducing future damages to present value before entry of judgment. The awards of future damages that this Court previously found to be reasonable compensation (248 A.D.2d 307, 670 N.Y.S.2d 486, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 815, 683 N.Y.S.2d 759, 706 N.E.2d 747) were not reduced to present value, and we remand the matter to Supreme Court to do so (see, Tormey v. Consolidated Edison Co., 184 A.D.2d 299, 585 N.Y.S.2d 33).
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: May 13, 1999
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)