Published on:

CPLR §5501

A Bronx Trip and Fall Lawyer said that, third party defendant moves pursuant to CPLR §4404 and §5501, to reduce the damages awarded to the plaintiff, after a jury trial, contending that the award is excessive and materially deviates from fair and reasonable compensation. The plaintiff sustained serious and catastrophic injuries when he fell while transversing a trench at a construction site in the Bronx. As a result of plaintiff’s fall into a trench at the job site he became impaled on a reinforcement bar (rebar) that was surgically removed several hours after his admission to the hospital. It is in this setting that the jury, after a trial and after hearing testimony from plaintiff’s physicians and other experts (that was largely uncontroverted) regarding the devastating and traumatic nature of the injury he sustained, rendered a verdict in the sum of $86 million including $20 million for past pain and suffering and $55 million for future pain and suffering.

A Bronx Spinal Personal Injury Lawyer said that, plaintiff’s treating physician, the Director of Spinal Cord Services at Hayes Hospital, described in explicit detail the nature and effect of the spinal injuries plaintiff incurred. The physician provided the court and jury, inter alia, with a graphic picture of plaintiff’s suffering, stating in part, that the pain plaintiff continues to experience “is of two types. He has nerve pain in his legs, and that nerve pain is perhaps one of the worst pains that you could think of. Imagine somebody stabbing you with a knife, a gazillion times, or with a pin all over the place. That numbness, that tingling, that stabbing sensation” is “present all the time, but it is a constant pain and that pain will not go away.” The physician depicted plaintiff’s chronic pain by providing the jury with a vivid description of the damage to plaintiff’s spinal column when the rebar went into the area of his spinal cord and the compression fracture also caused by the pipe entering his body. He described the emotional pain sustained by the plaintiff caused by the distress of no longer having the ability to walk and the nerve pain emanating from his legs which hetestified was permanent. The jury also heard testimony regarding plaintiff’s chronic bed sores, his catherization in order to urinate, his inability to control bowel movements, constant urinary track infections and repeated hospitalization for the conditions described by the medical physician.

The issue in this case is whether the damages awarded to plaintiff is excessive and materially deviates from fair and reasonable compensation.

Manifestly, pain and suffering awards are not subject to precise standards that permit a purely mathematically evaluation in order to determine whether a verdict deviates materially from what is reasonable compensation. CPLR §5501 requires that: “In reviewing a money judgment in an action in which an itemized verdict is required by rule forty-one hundred eleven of this chapter in which it is contended that the award is excessive or inadequate and that a new trial should have been granted unless a stipulation is entered to a different award, the appellate division shall determine that an award is excessive or inadequate if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation.”

If you want to ask for the reduction of the damages you need to pay, seek the legal advice of a Bronx Brain Injury Attorney and Bronx Spinal Injury Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Contact Information