¶1Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for conscious pain and suffering brought by the administrator of the estates of Janet Anderson and Judy Anderson was properly granted. All of the evidence shows that these girls were killed instantly upon impact. The plaintiff was not able to present any evidence that they suffered any conscious pain. Nor was the plaintiff able to show evidence from which one might imply that the decedents were aware of the danger and suffered from preimpact terror. Summary judgment was properly granted in the second action because it was not timely brought. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (CPLR 3025, subd [b]). (Appeal from order of Livingston Supreme Court—dismiss causes of action.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.
73 A.D.2d 1030
Anderson v. Rowe
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 11, 1980
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1980-01-11
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1998
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“The plaintiff was not able to present any evidence that they suffered any conscious pain. Nor was the plaintiff able to show evidence from which one might imply that the decedents were aware of the danger and suffered from pre-impact terror.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Shatkin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1980-01-11
View the full empirical analysis of this case →