Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996

Sescila v. Garine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 18, 1996

225 A.D.2d 684; 639 N.Y.2d 830; 639 N.Y.S.2d 830; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2603

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

Williams v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Tisdel v. Barber (District Court, S.D. New York 1997)
Usoiani v. Dumbo Moving & Stor., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Scott v. Posas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Scott v. Posas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Fryer v. Maimonides Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
McAdams v. Esposito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Rizzo v. DeSimone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Sotomayor v. Enterprise Packaging Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Ajoudanpour v. Globman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Rizzo v. DeSimone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Durant v. Brooklyn Medical Group, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Shaw v. Jacobs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Sperduti v. Mezger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Purcell v. Axelsen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Severin v. Benenati (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Preston v. Young (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Boinoff v. Riverbay Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Ramos v. Ramos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*685Generally, the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff for personal injuries is a question for the jury, and a motion for a new trial on the issue of damages will not be granted unless the award materially differs from what is a reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Gaetan v New York City Tr. Auth., 213 AD2d 510).

The jury awarded the 43 year old plaintiff $50,000 for past pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, and did not award anything for future pain and suffering for permanent injuries to her sciatic nerve and left lumbosacral area that she sustained in an automobile accident. The failure to award any amount for future damages cannot be reconciled with the jury’s findings that the plaintiff sustained a significant limitation of use of a body function or system and that the accident was the proximate cause of such injuries. Further, the jury’s failure to award any amount for damages for future pain and suffering is against the weight of the evidence because the evidence reveals that the plaintiff must continue her treatments for the same injuries and must continue to regularly take anti-inflammatory pills to reduce the pain from those injuries. Accordingly, the failure of the jury to award any amount for future pain and suffering is inadequate to the extent indicated herein (see, Wendell v Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 189 AD2d 1063; Powell v New York City Tr. Auth., 186 AD2d 728). Balletta, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.