Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Purkiss-Riddle v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 22, 2011

89 A.D.3d 1001; 933 N.Y.2d 714

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Fuentes v. Ingram (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Santiago v. Boyer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Zapata v. Yugo J & V, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Uceta v. Sherwood, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Cullen v. Thumser (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Munzon v. Victor at Fifth, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Quijano v. American Transit Insurance Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Vainer v. DiSalvo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Vainer v. DiSalvo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Algerio v. Caribbean Air Conditioning (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Algerio v. Caribbean Air Conditioning (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

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

*1002On April 29, 2006, the 69-year-old plaintiff injured her left knee and left shoulder when she fell on an escalator in the defendant’s subway station. After receiving physical therapy for several months, on June 5, 2007, the plaintiff had arthroscopic surgery to repair a torn lateral meniscus. The doctor who performed the surgery testified at trial that the plaintiff also suffered traumatically-induced grade four chondromalacia and synovitis in her knee. After a brief period during which her knee began to feel better, the pain eventually returned. The plaintiff was treated with cortisone injections and viscoelastic supplementation in her knee. The doctor testified that the plaintiff’s injuries were the result of the subject accident and were permanent and progressive. The doctor indicated that, in the future, the plaintiff would have to undergo a total knee replacement and three weeks of physical therapy in a nursing facility. In addition, the plaintiff would have to undergo arthroscopic surgery to repair a torn, supraspinatus tendon of the left shoulder. Under these circumstances, the damages award for past pain and suffering, and the award for future pain and suffering, as reduced by the Supreme Court, do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Harris v City of N.Y. Health & Hosps. Corp., 49 AD3d 321 [2008]; Lopez v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 40 AD3d 221 [2007]; Van Ness v New York City Tr. Auth., 288 AD2d 374 [2001]). Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.

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