TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Chase v. New York City Transit Authority

Edward T. Chase v. New York City Transit Authority

Chase v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 121 A.D.2d 425 (1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 9, 1986
Citations
121 A.D.2d 425503 N.Y.S.2d 1231986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58390

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), dated December 13, 1984, which is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it, upon a jury verdict, in the principal sum of $300,000 on the cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death and $50,000 on the cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering.

Judgment modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by reversing so much of the judgment as awarded damages for conscious pain and suffering, unless within 20 days after service upon the plaintiffs of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry, they shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages with respect to conscious pain and suffering to the principal sum of $25,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof awarding preverdict interest on the award of damages for conscious pain and suffering, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiffs interest thereon from December 5, 1984, the date of the verdict. In the event the plaintiffs stipulate to the reduction of damages for conscious pain and suffering, then the judgment in their favor, as so reduced and amended, and as so modified by deleting the provision thereof awarding preverdict interest on the award of *426 damages for conscious pain and suffering, is affirmed, with costs payable to the plaintiffs.

The verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the cause of action for damages for conscious pain and suffering was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Further, as the plaintiffs concede, the judgment appealed from erroneously provides for preverdict interest on the award of damages for conscious pain and suffering (see, Raman v Carborundum Co., 31 AD2d 552, 553 ). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1992: 11996: 11997: 119922026peak 1992 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation798 F. Supp. 940 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)
  2. McIntyre v. Manhattan Ford176 Misc. 2d 325 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997)
  3. Miller v. Santoro227 A.D.2d 534 (1996)

Most recent

  1. McIntyre v. Manhattan Ford176 Misc. 2d 325 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997)
  2. Miller v. Santoro227 A.D.2d 534 (1996)
  3. In re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation798 F. Supp. 940 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Raman v. Carborundum Co., 31 A.D.2d 552 (1968) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list