Ciganek v Town of Clarkstown

Annotate this Case
Ciganek v Town of Clarkstown 2011 NY Slip Op 03794 Decided on May 3, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 3, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
ANITA R. FLORIO
PLUMMER E. LOTT
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
2010-02783
2010-07402
(Index No. 1435/08)

[*1]Hope L. Ciganek, etc., respondent, et al., plaintiff,

v

Town of Clarkstown, et al., appellants.



 
Joseph A. Maria, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Frances Dapice
Marinelli and Edward A. Frey of counsel), for appellants.
Phillips, Krantz & Associates, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Heath T.
Buzin of counsel), for respondents.

 
DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated February 16, 2010, which, upon jury verdicts on the issues of liability and damages, is in favor of the infant plaintiff Hope L. Ciganek in the principal sum of $140,000, and (2) an order of the same court entered July 8, 2010, which, inter alia, denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the judgment on the ground that the damage awards were excessive.

ORDERED that the judgment and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, and taking into consideration the nature and the extent of the infant plaintiff's injuries, the damages awards for past and future pain and suffering do not deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501[c]).

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., FLORIO, LOTT and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.