| Zimnoch v Bridge View Palace, LLC |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00672 [69 AD3d 928] |
| January 26, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Andrzej Zimnoch et al., Respondents, v Bridge ViewPalace, LLC, Appellant. |
—[*1] Seligson, Rothman & Rothman, New York, N.Y. (Martin S. Rothman, William J. Ryan, andAlyne I. Diamond of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limitedby its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), datedOctober 8, 2008, as, upon an order of the same court dated March 23, 2007 which, inter alia,denied those branches of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), which were to set aside the juryverdict and for judgment as a matter of law in its favor or, alternatively, for a new trial on allissues, and granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a)which was to set aside the verdict as to damages only, and upon so much of a jury verdict as,after a new trial on the issue of damages only, awarded the plaintiff Andrzej Zimnoch theprincipal sums of $300,000 for past pain and suffering, $850,000 for future pain and suffering,$44,000 for past medical expenses, and $364,000 for future medical expenses, and upon an orderof the same court dated March 25, 2008, which, inter alia, denied those branches of its motionpursuant to CPLR 4404 which were to set aside as excessive the damages awarded for past andfuture pain and suffering and past and future medical expenses, and for a collateral sourcehearing pursuant to CPLR 4545, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sumsof $300,000 for past pain and suffering, $850,000 for future pain and suffering, $44,000 for pastmedical expenses, and $364,000 for future medical expenses, respectively.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, bydeleting the provisions thereof awarding the plaintiff Andrzej Zimnoch damages in the principalsums of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $850,000 for future pain and suffering, as somodified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the appellantby the plaintiffs, and a new trial is granted with respect to those damages only unless within 30days after service upon the plaintiffs of a copy of this decision and order, the plaintiffs shallserve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, a written stipulationconsenting to reduce the verdict as to past pain and suffering from the sum of $300,000 to thesum of $150,000, and as to future pain and suffering from the sum of $850,000 to the sum of$300,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly; in the event that the plaintiffsso stipulate, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from,without costs or disbursements.[*2]
On November 10, 2003, the plaintiff Andrzej Zimnoch(hereinafter Zimnoch) fell from a height of about two feet onto a concrete floor of a buildingowned by the defendant while using a chop saw to cut away concrete and brick in order toenlarge a window opening. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant torecover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries. After a trial, the jury found that the defendant'sviolation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was a substantial factor in causing the accident, and itawarded the plaintiffs $154,080 for past medical expenses, $1,540,800 for future medicalexpenses, and nothing for past and future pain and suffering. Following the jury verdict, thedefendant moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and forjudgment as a matter of law in its favor or, in the alternative, for a new trial on all issues. Theplaintiffs, inter alia, moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict ondamages only. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion, found that the damages awardwas against the weight of the evidence, and directed that a new trial be conducted as to damagesonly.
The trial court properly set aside the verdict as to damages after the first trial (seeCalifano v Automotive Rentals, 293 AD2d 436 [2002]; Myers v Schaffer GroceryCorp., 281 AD2d 156, 157 [2001]), and providently exercised its discretion in directing anew trial on the issue of damages only (see Figliomeni v Board of Educ. of City School Dist.of Syracuse, 38 NY2d 178, 182 [1975]). Where the jury necessarily concludes that aplaintiff was injured as a result of an accident, " 'the jury's failure to award damages for pain andsuffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and constitutes a material deviationfrom what would be reasonable compensation' " (Ramos v New York City Hous. Auth.,280 AD2d 325, 326 [2001], quoting Kennett v Piotrowski, 234 AD2d 983, 984 [1996];see Califano v Automotive Rentals, 293 AD2d 436 [2002]). In addition, since the jury'saward for past and future medical expenses after the first trial was substantially more thanwarranted by the evidence or requested by the plaintiffs during their summation, there is a stronglikelihood that the damages award was the result of an impermissible compromise (seeCalifano v Automotive Rentals, 293 AD2d 436 [2002]; Rivera v City of New York,253 AD2d 597, 600 [1998]; Torres v City of New York, 226 AD2d 701, 702 [1996]).
During the damages trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence that Zimnoch sustained herniateddiscs at L4-L5 and at L5-S1, and a bulging disc at L3-L4 as a result of the accident. As pertinentto this appeal, the jury awarded him the principal sums of $300,000 for past pain and suffering,$850,000 for future pain and suffering, $44,000 for past medical expenses, and $364,000 forfuture medical expenses. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the defendant's motionwhich were pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict as excessive and for a collateralsource hearing.
The award after the damages trial for past and future medical expenses did not deviatematerially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]). However,the jury award for past and future pain and suffering deviates materially from what would bereasonable compensation to the extent indicated herein (see CPLR 5501 [c]; see generally Van Nostrand vFroehlich, 18 AD3d 539 [2005]; Jansen v Raimondo & Son Constr. Corp., 293AD2d 574 [2002]).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erroneously denied its request for a hearing asto collateral source payments made to Zimnoch by workers' compensation lacks merit. Thepayments which the plaintiffs received are specifically excluded from consideration by statute(see CPLR 4545 [a]; Workers' Compensation Law § 29 [1]), and the record doesnot support the conclusion that Zimnoch received any benefits from a collateral source whichwould be deductible from the award.
The defendant's remaining contentions either do not require reversal, are unpreserved forappellate review, or are not otherwise properly before this Court. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Lottand Roman, JJ., concur.