You are here: / / WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE...

WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

The Second Department determined the jury verdict in this wrongful death case which awarded zero damages for loss of parental guidance was not against the weight of the evidence:

“In a wrongful death action, an award of damages is limited to the fair and just compensation for the pecuniary injuries resulting from the decedent’s death to the persons for whose benefit the action is brought” …. “In the case of a decedent who was not a wage earner, pecuniary injuries may be calculated, in part, from the increased expenditures required to continue the services she [or he] provided, as well as the compensable losses of a personal nature, such as loss of guidance” … . “The determination of pecuniary damages in a wrongful death action is peculiarly within the province of the jury” … . Here, we find that the evidence on the issue of the loss of the decedent’s parental guidance did not so preponderate in favor of the plaintiff such that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Estevez v Tam, 2017 NY Slip Op 01675, 2nd Dept 3-8-17

NEGLIGENCE (WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/WRONGFUL DEATH (WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/DAMAGES (WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/PARENTAL GUIDANCE (WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)

/by
You might also like
ABSENCE OF A COMMA, STANDING ALONE, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DICTATE THE MEANING OF A CODE PROVISION.
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Was Convicted of Bribing Three Witnesses to Recant their Statements Identifying Defendant’s Brother as the Shooter in a Killing;
“Lack of Standing” Defense Waived by Not Asserting It In the Answer—“Lack of Standing” Not a Jurisdictional Defect—Sua Sponte Dismissal for “Lack of Standing” Not Warranted
FOOT OF A DECORATIVE FENCE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW.
Condition Which Resulted in Plaintiff’s Injury Was Not the Cause of the Injury
IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT INSTRUCT THE DECEDENT TO REVOKE THE TOTTEN TRUSTS SO THE FUNDS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER WISHES AS SET OUT IN THE WILL AND TRUST DRAFTED BY DEFENDANTS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF COMMERCIAL TENANT DID NOT PROVE IT GAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO RENEW THE LEASE, THE TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO RELIEF IN EQUITY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CHIDREN WERE HEALTHY AND WELL CARED FOR, NEGLECT PETITION BASED UPON MOTHER’S... THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON TO DENY PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS, DETERMINATION...