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.
Nelson COTTO, et al., respondents, v. Harry COYLE, et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Driscoll, J.), entered December 23, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $250,000 ($30,000 for past pain and suffering, $210,000 for future pain and suffering, and $10,000 for loss of services). By decision and order on motion of this court dated July 22, 1998, the appellants' notice of appeal from decisions dated July 29, 1997, and November 14, 1997, respectively, was deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The court's determination that the injuries of the plaintiff Nelson Cotto were proximately caused by a defective sidewalk over which he tripped, and not by a pre-existing condition which caused his left knee to give out, is based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence. There is also ample support for the court's findings that the plaintiff did not contribute to the happening of the accident and that the defendants had constructive notice of the defect (see, Taylor v. New York City Tr. Auth., 48 N.Y.2d 903, 424 N.Y.S.2d 888, 400 N.E.2d 1340; Batton v. Elghanayan, 43 N.Y.2d 898, 899-900, 403 N.Y.S.2d 717, 374 N.E.2d 611; Atkins v. Francesca Realty Assocs., 238 A.D.2d 457, 657 N.Y.S.2d 927; Farrar v. Teicholz, 173 A.D.2d 674, 676, 570 N.Y.S.2d 329).
The court's award of $210,000 for future pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Atkins v. Francesca Realty Assocs., supra; Parros v. 1500 Realty Co., 226 A.D.2d 607, 641 N.Y.S.2d 372; Urquhart v. New York City Tr. Auth., 221 A.D.2d 336, 633 N.Y.S.2d 206; Serra v. City of New York, 215 A.D.2d 643, 627 N.Y.S.2d 699; Lemberger v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 622, 621 N.Y.S.2d 625; Castellano v. City of New York, 183 A.D.2d 800, 584 N.Y.S.2d 114; Menga v. Raquet, 150 A.D.2d 434, 541 N.Y.S.2d 43).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: February 16, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)