Kennett v. Piotrowski, 234 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Kennett v. Piotrowski, 234 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Zimnoch v. Bridge View Palace, LLC (nyappdiv, 2010-01-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zimnoch v. Bridge View Palace, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Auth., 280 AD2d 325, 326 [2001], quoting Kennett v Piotrowski, 234 AD2d 983, 984 [1996]; see Califano v Automotive Rentals, 293 AD2d 436 [2002]).
discussed Cited "see" Shimukonas v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
However, we find that the jury's failure to award damages for past pain and suffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501[c]; see Kennett v Piotrowski , 234 AD2d 983, 984 [4th Department 1996]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ramos v. New York City Housing Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
However, in light of the uncontroverted testimony, “the jury’s failure to award damages for pain and suffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and constitutes a material deviation from what would be reasonable compensation (see, Grasso v American Brass Co., 212 AD2d 994 ; Laylon v Shaver, 187 AD2d 983 ; see also, Fenocchi v City of Syracuse, 216 AD2d 864 )” (Kennett v Piotrowski, 234 AD2d 983, 984 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ernest W. Kennett
v.
Eugene Piotrowski, and Third-Party Besroi Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent
Appeal No. 1.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 30, 1996.
234 A.D.2d 983
1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13748
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion granted and new trial granted on damages only. Memorandum: Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s CPLR 4404 motion to set aside the jury verdict and directed a new trial on the issue of damages. The record establishes that plaintiff was granted summary judgment against defendants on the issue of liability for personal injuries[*984] he sustained as a result of a fall from a ladder on July 20, 1990. At the trial, plaintiff established that the fall had caused injuries to his left knee. Plaintiff testified that, immediately after injuring his knee, he could not stand and that he drove himself to the hospital. At the hospital, plaintiff’s knee was wrapped, pain medication was prescribed, and plaintiff was instructed to contact his personal physician. Plaintiff described his injury as painful. Upon seeing his personal physician, plaintiff was advised to stay off his leg and keep his knee elevated. A few months later, plaintiff was sent for physical therapy by his new personal physician. Plaintiff testified that his knee was stiff and he continued to have a throbbing pain in his knee. In December 1990 plaintiff sought further medical attention at the Erie County Medical Center, and in March 1991 out-patient surgery was performed on his knee. The medical evidence at trial established that plaintiff may have been capable of returning to light duty work as early as November 1990 and was capable of returning to work approximately one year after the accident. The jury verdict awarded plaintiff damages of $15,000 for lost wages but did not award him any damages for pain and suffering. Because the undisputed evidence establishes that plaintiff suffered an injury to the knee that required medical treatment, including surgery, and partially disabled him from working, the jury’s failure to award damages for pain and suffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and constitutes a material deviation from what would be reasonable compensation (see, Grasso v American Brass Co., 212 AD2d 994; Laylon v Shaver, 187 AD2d 983; see also, Fenocchi v City of Syracuse, 216 AD2d 864). Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to a new trial on damages. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J.—Damages.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.