You are here: / / DAMAGES AWARDED 69-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING...
,

DAMAGES AWARDED 69-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING DEEMED EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the damages awarded the 69-year-old plaintiff for past and future pain and suffering were too high:

Judgment … upon a jury verdict, which … awarded plaintiff $1.2 million for past pain and suffering, $1 million for future pain and suffering over 10 years, $255,582 for future medical expenses, and $250,000 for future loss of earnings … unanimously modified … to remand the matter for a new trial on damages for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering, unless plaintiff stipulates … to reduce the awards for past pain and suffering to $1,000,000 and for future pain and suffering to $675,000 … . Dacaj v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 02171, First Dept 3-21-19

 

You might also like
TERMINATION OF TENURED TEACHER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY RULE.
Legal Opinions, Software, and a Manual for the Software Properly Withheld
THE METEOROLOGICAL DATA WAS NOT SWORN TO; DEFENDANTS THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE EDGE OF A BATHTUB WHEN HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL A SHOWER-CURTAIN ROD; THE EDGE OF THE TUB WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
Supreme Court Case Relied Upon to Vacate Convictions by Guilty Plea Where Defendant Not Informed of Possibility of Deportation Can Not Be Applied Retroactively
OSTENSIBLE NON EMPLOYER WAS NOT A JOINT EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LIABILITY; CRITERIA FOR JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE DEFENDANT TRUSTEES WERE WORTHLESS BECAUSE OF DEFENDANTS’ BREACHES OF CONTRACTUAL, FIDUCIARY AND STATUTORY DUTIES; MOST (BUT NOT ALL) OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE DENIED BASED UPON CONTRACT-INTERPRETATION PRINCIPLES (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION ON AN EVIDENTIARY GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST 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

CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, ERROR HARMLESS... PLAINTIFF WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH MURDER IN 2002 AND ACQUITTED IN 2006,...