Klein v. Leonardi (N.Y.App.Div. 12/09/1999)

[1]

Supreme Court12/9/1999 ly life as a result of the injury, plaintiff claimed that he is now relegated to using plastic, rather than paper, bags at the grocery store, that he has problems performing lawn work, that he can no longer lift his 100-pound pot belly pig and that it is difficult for him to vacuum and move furniture. Yet, the jury also heard that plaintiff, a weight lifter, continues to weight train three days per week and performs cardiovascular training, including the use of a Stairmaster, four or five days per week. In light of these facts, we find that a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury's modest damage award which does not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501 ; see also, Murphy v. Lewry, supra ). Finally, while a review of other appellate determinations can aid this court in its assessment of whether an award deviates from what has otherwise been deemed reasonable compensation, the cases relied upon by plaintiff (see, e.g., Crawford v. Marcello, 247 AD2d 907; Dunn v. Moss, 193 AD2d 983) are markedly different from the subject case and do not warrant an additur of damages. Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Page 1 2 

New York Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers