TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dontas v. City of New York

Andreas Dontas, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Nicholas Dontas v. City of New York

Dontas v. City of N.Y., 183 A.D.2d 868 (1992)
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
May 26, 1992
Citations
183 A.D.2d 868584 N.Y.S.2d 1341992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7396

Opinion of the Court

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for the wrongful death of the plaintiff’s decedent, the defendants appeal from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), entered December 21, 1989, which, inter alia, upon a jury verdict finding them 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal amounts of $4,000,000 on the cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death and $2,000,000 on the *869 cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the first, second, and third decretal paragraphs thereof are deleted, and a new trial is granted on the issue of damages only, unless within 20 days after service upon the plaintiff of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, the plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages for wrongful death from $4,000,000 to $300,000 and to reduce the verdict as to damages for conscious pain and suffering from $2,000,000 to $50,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly; in the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff’s decedent, Nicholas Dontas, drowned in the swimming pool located at the high school that he attended. He was 16 years old at the time and was found in the pool shortly after a swimming class had ended. On appeal, the defendants assert that the award for conscious pain and suffering was against the weight of the evidence and that the monetary amounts awarded were excessive.

We do not agree that the jury’s implicit finding that the decedent sustained conscious pain and suffering was against the weight of the evidence. The school’s swimming instructor testified that he attempted to apply artificial respiration immediately after Dontas was retrieved from the pool, but that Dontas’ jaw and teeth were clenched so tightly that artificial respiration had to be administered through his nose. With respect thereto, the plaintiff’s expert testified that a drowning victim will clench his jaw in order to prevent water from entering his mouth and that this action is motivated by fear. We find that the jury could reasonably conclude from this testimony that Dontas was conscious for a period of time as he was drowning. However, we find that the monetary award for conscious pain and suffering was excessive to the extent indicated in view of the fact that the experts from both sides indicated that a drowning victim would lose consciousness in just a few minutes.

We also find that the $4,000,000 award for wrongful death was excessive. Although the decedent in this case provided extensive services to his family and contributed monetary support to the household, the award far exceeds any reason *870 able value which could be assigned to those lost services and financial contributions, and is excessive to the extent indicated. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1996: 31997: 22000: 12001: 22003: 22007: 119962026peak 1996 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Karen Jutzi-Johnson, as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Johnson, Deceased v. United States263 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2001)
  2. Zurba v. United States247 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
  3. Lang v. Bouju245 A.D.2d 1000 (1997)
  4. Donofrio v. Montalbano240 A.D.2d 617 (1997)
  5. Glassman v. City of New York225 A.D.2d 658 (1996)
  6. Twersky v. Busche37 A.D.3d 704 (2007)

Most recent

  1. Twersky v. Busche37 A.D.3d 704 (2007)
  2. Maracallo v. Board of Education2 Misc. 3d 703 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)
  3. Maracallo v. Board of Educ. of the City of New York2003 NY Slip Op 23916 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)
  4. Zurba v. United States247 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
  5. Karen Jutzi-Johnson, as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Johnson, Deceased v. United States263 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2001)
  6. Johnson v. Queens-Long Island Medical Group, P. C.272 A.D.2d 524 (2000)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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