From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wimbish v. New York City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 2003
305 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-03847

Argued May 1, 2003.

May 19, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered March 25, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering.

Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Anita Isola of counsel), for appellants.

Rappaport, Glass, Greene Levine, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Thomas S. Pardo of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On September 13, 1993, the plaintiff was in her automobile waiting to make a left turn at an intersection when her vehicle was hit from behind and then sideswiped by a bus. As a result, she sustained herniated discs at levels C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6. The plaintiff commenced this action against the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the Transit Authority) and the bus driver. After a jury trial, the plaintiff was awarded $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering.

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the trial court properly admitted an internal memorandum prepared by the Transit Authority that provided a description of the accident and concluded that the damage to the vehicles was consistent with the plaintiff's version of the accident. The memorandum was not an internal rule, and did not refer to violations of any internal rules that imposed a duty of care on the Transit Authority greater than that required by common law (cf. Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322, 329; Crosland v. New York City Tr. Auth., 68 N.Y.2d 165, 168-169; Lesser v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 157 A.D.2d 352, 356, sub nom Fishman v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., affd 79 N.Y.2d 1031; Ramirez v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 258 A.D.2d 326, 327).

The damage awards were not excessive.

FLORIO, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wimbish v. New York City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 2003
305 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Wimbish v. New York City Transit Auth

Case Details

Full title:MARY WIMBISH, respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, ET AL.…

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

Date published: May 19, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 879

Citing Cases

Montes v. City

It is beyond cavil that in a negligence action, a defendant's internal rules or practices, which set forth a…

UGUR v. 140 BROADWAY PROP., LLC

Plaintiff asserts that the pain and suffering awards herein are reasonable, in light of his condition and…