You are here: / / Inadequate Pain and Suffering Damages Verdict Properly Set Aside
,

Inadequate Pain and Suffering Damages Verdict Properly Set Aside

The Second Department determined the jury’s pain and suffering damages award in a slip and fall case was against the weight of the evidence and Supreme Court properly set the damages verdict aside:

After a trial on the issue of damages, the jury awarded the plaintiff the sum of $20,000 for past pain and suffering and $0 for future pain and suffering. The trial court correctly granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages, as that verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The jury’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for future pain and suffering was inconsistent with the evidence that her shoulder injury was permanent in nature … . The award for past pain and suffering was also contrary to the weight of the evidence, as it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Santana v Western Beef Retail, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07639, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

You might also like
Lineup Was Unduly Suggestive
PETITION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ENTER A CONDOMINIUM TO MAKE REPAIRS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Zoning Board Should Have Made Every Effort to Accommodate Religious Use/Zoning Board’s Denial of Variances Annulled and Variances Granted
IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 TRIAL, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BETTER PRACTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO RESERVE ON THE MOTION AND LET THE MATTER GO TO THE JURY; AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE VERDICT WAS INCONSISTENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
REQUEST WAS PROPERLY DEEMED AN APPLICATION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE, NOT A USE VARIANCE, AND WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendants Who Struck Plaintiff’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Pulled Out of a Parking Lot Entitled to Summary Judgment
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “SINGLE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
A JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE IF THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT THE TITLE (HERE SUSPICION A DEED WAS FORGED); CAVEAT EMPTOR (BUYER BEWARE) IS NOT STRICTLY APPLIED TO A JUDICIAL SALE AT AUCTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Former Parking Enforcement Officer Entitled to Hearing Re: Whether Town Abolished... School District Failed to Demonstrate It Did Not Have Actual or Constructive...