You are here: / / IF A TRIAL JUDGE DECIDES THE DAMAGES AWARDED BY THE JURY ARE EXCESSIVE,...
, ,

IF A TRIAL JUDGE DECIDES THE DAMAGES AWARDED BY THE JURY ARE EXCESSIVE, THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF STIPULATES TO THE REDUCED AWARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department agreed with the trial judge’s reduction of damages awarded by the jury in this wrongful death case but noted that the judge should have ordered a new trial unless plaintiff stipulated to the lower damages amount:

… [W]hile the 21-year-old Bohdan [plaintiff’s decedent], who worked in the family business, lived with his parents, and cared for his younger sibling, was described as a wonderful, loving son who was especially helpful around the home, based on the record, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the jury awards for past pecuniary loss and future pecuniary loss were excessive. … . … [I]t was procedurally improper for the court to reduce the awards of damages for past pecuniary loss and future pecuniary loss without granting a new trial on those issues unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict … . Vitenko v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06515, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: If the trial judge decides the damages awarded by the jury are excessive, the proper procedure is to order a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced amount.

 

You might also like
Proof Requirements for “Breach of Employment Contract” and “Labor Law Article 6” Actions
BY ENTERING A STIPULATION SETTLING A FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAIVED ANY DEFECT IN SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT, THE STIPULATION WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT OCCUR IN COURT, EMAILS AND PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT AMOUNT MEMORIALIZED THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
Obstruction of View of Stop Sign by Vegetation Not Actionable Against the Town Without Allegation Town Had Prior Written Notice of the Obstruction
Attorney Whose Testimony Would Support Client Should Have Been Disqualified Under Advocate-Witness Rule, However, the Motion to Disqualify the Attorney’s Firm Was Properly Denied
“BEST EVIDENCE RULE” CRITERIA EXPLAINED; NOT MET HERE.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RESTRICTED THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES OF COMPLAINANTS AND COMPLAINANTS’ PARENTS FOR THEIR PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY SLIPPED AND FELL BECAUSE OF LEAVES ON THE STAIRWAY; THE CONDITION WAS NOT BOTH “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AND “NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW; PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IN DESCENDING THE STAIRWAY FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE ACCIDENT, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Father Estopped from Denying Paternity—Best Interests of Child Prevail

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER THE... ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION OR A MALICIOUS OR TORTIOUS ACT, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS...