Alvarez v. Mendik Realty Plaza, Inc., 176 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Alvarez v. Mendik Realty Plaza, Inc., 176 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stewart v. New York City Transit Authority (nyappdiv, 2011-03-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stewart v. New York City Transit Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The jury was therefore entitled to charge defendant with constructive knowledge of each reoccurrence of the hazardous condition (see Alvarez v Mendik Realty Plaza, 176 AD2d 557, 558 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 756 [1992]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. Webb
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court erred in failing to instruct the jury to consider the infant’s future pain and suffering in determining the appropriate level of damages since the evidence presented by the plaintiff, including a hospital record, an operative report, and testimony from the infant and the infant’s treating physician, was legally sufficient to support an award for such damages (see Falcaro v Kessman, 215 AD2d 432 [1995]; Alvarez v Mendik Realty Plaza, 176 AD2d 557, 558 [1991]; see also Davis v City of New York, 264 AD2d 379, 380 [1999]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jorge L. Alvarez
v.
Mendik Realty Plaza, Inc., and Mendik Realty Co., Inc., Appellant-Respondent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 15, 1991.
176 A.D.2d 557
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered March 8, 1990, which, inter alia, awarded damages to plaintiffs upon a jury verdict in their favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On January 18, 1984, plaintiff sustained a herniated disc when he slipped and fell on debris lying on a stairway at Two Penn Plaza, which is managed by defendant. As a result, plaintiff underwent surgery the next month but nevertheless continued to suffer back pain up until the time of trial in October, 1989.

[*558] We find that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to show that there was "a lack of ordinary care in the management of the premises at the time and place in question” (Quinlan v Cecchini, 41 NY2d 686, 690). Specifically, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer that defendant had actual knowledge that vagrants customarily congregated on the stairway and discarded debris there which was regularly permitted to remain for an unreasonable period of time. The jury was therefore entitled to charge defendant with constructive knowledge of each reoccurrence of the hazardous condition (see, Morales v Jolee Consolidators, 173 AD2d 315; Weisenthal v Pickman, 153 AD2d 849). Under such circumstances the jury was entitled to find that the defendant "should reasonably have foreseen that, under the conditions which prevailed, it was only a matter of time until someone might be injured” (Quinlan v Cecchini, supra, at 690).

Plaintiffs’ testimony, when considered along with the medical records detailing Mr. Alvarez’ hospital stay and surgery, adequately established both causation and the permanency of Mr. Alvarez’ injury (Shaw v Tague, 257 NY 193). Moreover, we find that the jury’s determination that Mr. Alvarez’ apportioned liability for his fall was only 25% was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., Morales v Jolee Consolidators, supra) and that the damages awarded to each plaintiff fell within the range of reasonable compensation for the injuries suffered. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Ross, JJ.