You are here: / / PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF WIFE ASSUMED FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOUSEHOLD CHORES,...
,

PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF WIFE ASSUMED FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOUSEHOLD CHORES, COOKING, TRANSPORTIING THE CHILDREN, AND CARED FOR THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WARRANTED A $40,000 AWARD FOR LOSS OF SERVICES; THE JURY HAD AWARDED $0 DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding for a new trial unless the parties stipulate to a damages award of $40,000 for loss of services, determined the jury’s award of $0 damages constituted a material deviation from reasonable compensation:

Plaintiff wife testified that after the injured plaintiff’s accident, she assumed full responsibility for household chores, cooking, and transportation for plaintiffs’ children, and also had to care for the injured plaintiff. This testimony is sufficient to support an award for past loss of services … . Lind v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 05540, First Dept 11-12-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into the value of “loss of services” in a personal injury case.

 

You might also like
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE INVOICES FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES WERE “REASONABLE;” THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ACCOUNT-STATED ACTION IS WHETHER THE CLIENT OBJECTED TO THE AMOUNTS OF THE INVOICES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY THE ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO A DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT.
WHOLLY ARBITRARY DECISION BY COOPERATIVE BOARD TO RESCIND PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE CONTRACT NOT SHIELDED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK CONSTITUTED ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6); ACTION AGAINST OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD PROPERLY DISMISSED, NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF THE WORK (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE PROVISION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DID NOT TOLL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RE: AN ACTION SEEKING TO RECOVER THE COST OF BUILDING MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CODE AFTER DEFENDANTS’ CONSTRUCTION OF A TALLER NEIGHBORING BUILDING.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL.
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM DEFENDANT THE AGGRAVATED FELONY TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY SUBJECTED HIM TO MANDATORY DEPORTATION, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).
SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

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

DEFENDANT’S 2013 GUILTY PLEA WAS DEEMED DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE JUDGE FAILED... FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL...