From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlos v. W.H.P. 19, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 16, 2003
301 A.D.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

In Carlos, supra, where the plaintiff suffered a permanent restriction of motion that limited his ability to walk on some surfaces and a 50 percent permanent loss of motion in his foot and ankle, the appellate court upwardly modified the jury's award of damages for future pain and suffering to $102,800 over a period of 14.6 years, or approximately $7,000 per year.

Summary of this case from Byrne v. Yeats Constr. Mgmt.

Opinion

2374

January 16, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul Victor, J.), entered February 6, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict awarding plaintiff $81,000 for past pain and suffering, $36,500 for future pain and suffering over 14.6 years, and $16,200 for past lost earnings, for a total award of $133,700, granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial on damages unless defendants stipulated to increase the jury's total award to $250,000, and bringing up for review a trial ruling denying defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for lost earnings, unanimously modified, on the facts, to delete the reference to a total award of $250,000, deem the $116,300 additur allocated entirely to the award of future pain and suffering, and direct a new trial on damages unless, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry, defendants stipulate to increase the jury's award for future pain and suffering to $102,800, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Paul F. McAloon, for plaintiffs-respondents.

Harry Steinberg, for defendants-appellants.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Lerner, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.


The 65-year-old plaintiff suffered a non-displaced fracture of the calcaneus bone and a tear of the anterior ligament in the lateral aspect of the ankle, which, according to his expert, resulted in progressive degenerative changes and a permanent restriction of motion thereby limiting his ability to walk on some surfaces. Defendants' expert confirmed that plaintiff's loss of motion in his foot and ankle, rated at 50%, is permanent. Given these facts, the jury's future pain and suffering award of $36,500 over 14.6 years, which translates to $2500 per year, deviates materially from what is reasonable compensation. However, inasmuch as the calcaneus fracture has healed and plaintiff no longer requires crutches or takes medication for the heel pain, and in view of the equivocal opinion of plaintiff's treating physician as to whether he will require future surgical intervention, the trial court's $116,300 additur, which we allocate entirely to future pain and suffering based on plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict, for a total future pain and suffering award of $152,800, or about $10,000 per year, is excessive. We modify to reduce the additur by $50,000, for a total future pain and suffering award of $102,800, or about $7,000 per year (CPLR 5501[c]). A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury's award for past lost earnings.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Carlos v. W.H.P. 19, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 16, 2003
301 A.D.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

In Carlos, supra, where the plaintiff suffered a permanent restriction of motion that limited his ability to walk on some surfaces and a 50 percent permanent loss of motion in his foot and ankle, the appellate court upwardly modified the jury's award of damages for future pain and suffering to $102,800 over a period of 14.6 years, or approximately $7,000 per year.

Summary of this case from Byrne v. Yeats Constr. Mgmt.
Case details for

Carlos v. W.H.P. 19, LLC

Case Details

Full title:MOWBRAY CARLOS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. W.H.P. 19 LLC, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 16, 2003

Citations

301 A.D.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
752 N.Y.S.2d 874

Citing Cases

Oakes v. Patel

In my view, the court properly set aside the award for past and future pain and suffering, past and future…

Oakes v. Patel

As Justice Peradotto pointed out, defendants made clear in opposing plaintiffs' motion for a new trial their…