Case Name: Flavia Perry, Respondent, v. Giovanni Drago, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2003-03-17
Citations: 303 A.D.2d 570
Docket Number: 
Parties: Flavia Perry, Respondent, v Giovanni Drago, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 303
Pages: 570–571

Head Matter:
Flavia Perry, Respondent, v Giovanni Drago, Appellant.
[756 NYS2d 503]

Opinion:
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated January 22, 2002, which, upon his default on the issue of liability and upon a jury verdict after an inquest on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $120,000 ($20,000 for past pain and suffering and $100,000 for punitive damages).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts and as matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding punitive damages and substituting therefor a provision severing the claim for punitive damages and granting a new trial with respect thereto; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the appellant, unless within 30 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, the plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, a written stipulation consenting to decrease the verdict as to punitive damages from the sum of $100,000 to the sum of $15,000 and to the entry of an appropriate amended judgment; in the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment accordingly.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the award of $20,000 in compensatory damages was not excessive (see CPLR 5501 [c]; see e.g. Balsam v City of New York, 298 AD2d 479 [2002]; Stylianou v Calabrese, 297 AD2d 798 [2002]). However, the award of punitive damages was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Nardelli v Stamberg, 44 NY2d 500 [1978]; Buggie v Cutler, 222 AD2d 640, 642 [1995]; Laurie Marie M. v Jeffrey T.M., 159 AD2d 52, 61 [1990], affd 77 NY2d 981 [1991]; cf. Ramlakhan v Mangru, 253 AD2d 806 [1998]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.