Shurgan v. Tedesco
Noah Shurgan, an Infant, by His Parent and Natural Guardian, Kenneth Shurgan v. Joseph Tedesco
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
*806 The infant plaintiff sustained permanent facial scarring following an attack by the defendants’ dog, which was known to have vicious propensities. The uncontroverted evidence revealed that the plaintiff underwent two surgeries and would require two additional surgeries to attempt to repair his disfiguring facial scar.
The exercise of the discretion of a trial court over damage awards should be exercised sparingly (James v Shanley, 73 AD2d 752 ). However, under the circumstances of this case, we find that the trial court properly set aside the jury’s award of damages as inadequate since the award materially deviated from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Christopher v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 76 NY2d 1003 ; Byrd v New York City Tr. Auth., 172 AD2d 579 ; Giglio v Pignataro, 54 AD2d 556 ). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(affirming trial court's additur where court set aside jury award as materially deviating from what would be reasonable compensation)
-
(approving trial court's use of "deviates materially" test)
Cited by 23 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.