Torts · MBE-tested
Harrilal Ramlakhan, Respondent, v. Sumintra Mangru et al., Appellants
253 A.D.2d 806678 N.Y.S.2d 111·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1998·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Harrilal Ramlakhan, Respondent, v Sumintra Mangru et al., Appellants.
[678 NYS2d 111]
[MAJORITY]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a battery, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated October 9, 1997, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal amount of $78,000 ($45,000 in damages for pain and suffering, $8,000 in lost earnings, and $25,000 in punitive damages).
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 AD2d 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 AD2d 527, 531; Georgiadis v State of New York, 106 AD2d 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.