TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Loehner v. Simons

Rudolph J. Loehner, Individually and as of Norma Loehner v. Stephen Simons

Loehner v. Simons, 239 A.D.2d 468 (1997)
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 19, 1997
Citations
239 A.D.2d 468657 N.Y.S.2d 4471997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5358

Opinion of the Court

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

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and pain and suffering, the defendants Stephen Simons, M.D., and East Nassau Medical Group appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated June 14, 1996, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sums of $300,000 for conscious pain and suffering and $300,000 for wrongful death.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the sum of $50,000 from the award for wrongful death, representing the share of the adult son of the decedent; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.

*469 In a wrongful death action, an award of damages is limited to the "pecuniary injuries resulting from the decedent’s death to the persons for whose benefit the action is brought” (EPTL 5-4.3 [a]; see, Gonzalez v New York City Hous. Auth., 77 NY2d 663 ). Further, while financially independent adults may recover in wrongful death actions (see, Gonzalez v New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Tilley v Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 29 NY 252 ), on the facts of this case, that part of the wrongful death award that was made on behalf of the decedent’s adult son in the amount of $50,000 must be vacated because there was no evidence as to any economic injury to the son caused by his mother’s death.

The appellants’ remaining contentions lack merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1998: 11999: 12003: 119982026peak 1998 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mono v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.13 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
  2. Biggs v. Mary Immaculate Hospital303 A.D.2d 702 (2003)
  3. Olsen v. Burns267 A.D.2d 366 (1999)

Most recent

  1. Biggs v. Mary Immaculate Hospital303 A.D.2d 702 (2003)
  2. Olsen v. Burns267 A.D.2d 366 (1999)
  3. Mono v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.13 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Gonzalez v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 572 N.E.2d 598 (N.Y. 1991) 101
Tilley v. the H.R.R.R. Co., 29 N.Y. 252 (1864) 64

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