From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramlakhan v. Mangru

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 21, 1998
253 A.D.2d 806 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

September 21, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134). In addition, the damages awarded were adequately supported by the trial evidence and were not excessive ( cf., Papa v. City of New York, 194 A.D.2d 527, 531; Georgiadis v. State of New York, 106 A.D.2d 706, 707-708). In view of the premeditated and brutal nature of the defendants' attack upon the plaintiff with baseball bats, resulting in serious injuries, we find that the $25,000 awarded in punitive damages was not excessive.

The defendants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Thompson, J.P., Santucci Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ramlakhan v. Mangru

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 21, 1998
253 A.D.2d 806 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Ramlakhan v. Mangru

Case Details

Full title:HARRILAL RAMLAKHAN, Respondent, v. SUMINTRA MANGRU et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 21, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 806 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
678 N.Y.S.2d 111

Citing Cases

Perry v. Drago

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the award of $20,000 in compensatory damages was not excessive (see…

Launders v. Steinberg

While "personal injury awards, especially those for pain and suffering, are subjective opinions which are…