Court Opinion

ID: 9870108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 19:48:26.654178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:06.743884
License: Public Domain

Tom, J.P.,
dissents in part in a memorandum as follows: While I agree with the majority that the jury’s finding on liability was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, and that the trial court correctly denied defendants’ request to add the driver of the vehicle that struck plaintiff to the verdict sheet, I would reduce the jury’s awards for past and future pain and suffering of $2 million and $4 million to $1.5 million and $3 million respectively, and reduce the overall judgment interest to 3%.
With regard to damages, the jury’s award deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501). It is true that similar verdicts have been upheld, or reduced to amounts in line with the jury’s award here (see Lopez v New York City Tr. Auth., 60 AD3d 529 [1st Dept 2009], *487lv denied 13 NY3d 717 [2010]; Hoenig v Shyed, 284 AD2d 225 [1st Dept 2001]). In this case, however, plaintiffs injury arose out of a surgical amputation of his leg following his suffering a crush injury to his leg from being hit by a car. Accordingly, the jury was instructed that the verdict could only award damages for an exacerbation of the original injury, and not the original injury itself. Thus, the award here was not for the entire injury, but only for the exacerbation of the original injury, a serious injury in and of itself. Moreover, even assuming plaintiffs leg was salvageable, it cannot be reasonably concluded that it would not have had deficits caused by the crush injuries from the accident. Indeed, defendants’ expert testified to this likelihood. Therefore, the award should be reduced as indicated.