Murphy v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Nov 12, 2010
Appeal No. 1
Versions:78 A.D.3d 1543
910 N.Y.S.2d 723

John Murphy, Respondent, v CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) [910 NYS2d 723]—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Rose H. Sconiers, J.), entered July 13, 2009 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, awarded plaintiff prejudgment interest.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs (see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 155 AD2d 435 [1989]; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Fahey and Green, JJ.

John Murphy, Respondent, v CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.) [910 NYS2d 789]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Rose H. Sconiers, J.), entered July 13, 2009 in a personal injury action. The judgment awarded plaintiff the sum of $930,401.59 as against defendant together with interest.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting those parts of defendant‘s post-trial motion to set aside the verdict in part and setting aside the award of damages for past lost wages and benefits and past medical expenses and by providing that interest on the total amount of damages at the rate of 9% per annum shall commence July 13, 2009 and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, to reduce the award of damages for past lost wages and benefits and past medical expenses following a further hearing, if necessary, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (45 USC § 51 et seq.) seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained during the course of his employment by defendant as a locomotive engineer. Contrary to defendant‘s contention, Supreme Court properly granted the motion of plaintiff seeking, inter alia, partial summary judgment on liability with respect to the cause of action alleging that defendant violated the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act ([LIA] 49 USC § 20701 et seq.). In support of the mo-