 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Allen v. Amzoski2/16/2004
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
The following documents were considered in reviewing defendants' post-trial motion, for an order setting aside the jury verdict on damages as excessive:
Numbered
| 1, 2 (exhibits)
| 3 (exhibits)
|
The Court presided over this personal injury action stemming from a two-car, automobile accident. The jury awarded plaintiff Enna Allen $415,000.00 in damages for past and future pain and suffering. Defendants Mustafa Amzoski and Bajram Amzoski now move pursuant to CPLR §5501(c) for an order setting aside the jury damages award as excessive, e.i., deviating materially from what should be reasonable compensation under the circumstances of this case.
Factual Background and Procedural History
The automobile accident occurred on October 17, 1998, in the County of the Bronx. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a livery cab operated by defendant Peralta. The cab had stopped at the intersection of East 198th Street and Cambling Avenue, waiting for the light to turn green, when it was rear ended by a car owned by defendant Mustafa Amzoski and operated by defendant Bajram Amzoski.
Before trial, defendant Peralta was granted summary judgment dismissing the action against him. Simultaneously, summary judgment was granted in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Mustafa and Bajram Amzoski on the issue of liability, upon the finding that defendant Bajram Amzoski's negligent driving caused the rear-end collision. The case proceeded to trial on the threshold issue of the no-fault, serious injury, and damages.
At the trial, plaintiff presented a medical expert, Dr. William Kulak, an orthopedic surgeon. He testified that plaintiff had sustained bulging disks as a result of the automobile accident. Reportedly, the injury worsened into herniated disks at L4-L5 and L5-S1. Conversely, defendants' expert, Dr. R.C. Krishna, testified that plaintiff had only suffered cervical and lumbosacral sprains which had been resolved by the time he examined plaintiff in November of 2001. The jury found that plaintiff had suffered a serious injury as a result of the automobile accident and awarded plaintiff damages of $115,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $300,000.00 for future pain and suffering fo a period of fifteen years. Defendants now move to set aside the jury verdict on damages, as deviating materially from what should be reasonable compensation under the circumstances of this case.
Discussion
In setting aside a jury award of damages as inadequate or excessive pursuant to CPLR §5501(c), the court must find that such award "deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation ." The 1986 amendment to CPLR §5501(c) replaced the prior "shocks the conscience" review. Harvey v. Mazal American Partners, 79 N.Y.2d 218, 225 (1992). This new standard "in design and operation, influences outcomes by tightening the range of tolerable awards." Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415, 425 (1996).
Generally, the method of that review is to evaluate whether the appealed award deviates materially from comparable awards. Donlon v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 13, 14 (1st Dept. 2001). For more than a decade appellate review has been performed by analogizing an appealed case with relevant precedent and "tightening the range" to accomplish the purposes of the 1986 reform. Donlon v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d at 14. "Such a method cannot, due to the inherently subje
Page 1 2 3 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|