You are here: / / $10.5 MILLION VERDICT FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING DEEMED EXCESSIVE...

$10.5 MILLION VERDICT FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING DEEMED EXCESSIVE IN THIS PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF ASKED TO STIPULATE TO $3 MILLION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a decision which does not discuss the relevant facts, determined the $10.5 million verdict for conscious pain and suffering was excessive and ordered a new trial unless plaintiff stipulates to $3 million. Plaintiff’s decedent was crossing the street when she was struck by defendant’s van:

The jury’s finding that defendant was solely at fault for the decedent’s death is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence … . Plaintiff’s evidence established that the decedent was crossing the street with the right-of-way when she was struck by a van operated by defendant’s employee making a left turn. Defendant presented no evidence to rebut plaintiff’s evidence. Its argument that the decedent may have been crossing the street outside of the crosswalk is speculative, given that its employee did not see the decedent until after the accident … . “[T]he position of [the decedent’s] body after impact is not probative as to whether she was walking in the cross-walk prior to being struck” … . In light of this determination, we do not reach defendant’s arguments about the propriety of testimony elicited, and statements made by plaintiff’s counsel, about its hiring practices generally and its hiring of the driver involved in the accident specifically.

We find the award for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering excessive to the extent indicated … . Martinez v Premium Laundry Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01557, First Dept 3-5-20

 

You might also like
THE OWNER OF A COOPERATIVE BUILDING WAS PROPERLY FOUND LIABLE FOR FAILING TO REMEDIATE LEAD PAINT IN A SHAREHOLDER’S APARTMENT WHICH WAS SUBLET TO PLAINTIFF AND HER YOUNG DAUGHTER (FIRST DEPT).
ON A COLD DAY DEFENDANTS HOSED DOWN THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE; ANY COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD FOR FILING A NEW ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL (CPLR 205 (A)) DOES NOT APPLY IF THE UNDERLYING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE ACTION HAS NOT RUN; PLAINTIFF WAS FREE TO COMMENCE ANOTHER ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL ANYTIME WITHIN THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).
CITY DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO PRESERVE PRE-ACCIDENT POLICE COMMUNICATIONS IN THIS POLICE-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE THE CITY DEFENDANTS WERE AWARE THEY WOULD PROBABLY ASSERT AN EMERGENCY DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. 
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 VOIDS A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A TENANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE, BUT DOES NOT VOID A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR THE TENANT’S LOST PROFITS CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).
THE LETTER CRITICIZING THE FORMER DEAN OF THE FASHION INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WAS NOT DEFAMATORY ON ITS FACE, BUT THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Even Though the Insured Was Faultless, the “Additional Insureds” Endorsement Was Triggered—The Endorsement Covered Acts or Omissions by the Insured Which “Caused” the Underlying Injury Without Any Requirement that the “Cause” Entail Negligence—Here the Insured Was Not Negligent, but the Injury Was “Caused” by Insured’s Non-Negligent Acts—Therefore the Additional Insureds Were Covered Under the Policy

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

A WORN MARBLE STEP IS NOT AN ACTIONABLE DEFECT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR... ICE ON SIDEWALK MAY HAVE PRE-EXISTED RECENT SNOW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR...