Hammer v 1111 Ave. K, Inc.
2014 NY Slip Op 01716 [115 AD3d 803]
March 19, 2014
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 30, 2014


Esther Hammer, Respondent,
v
1111 Avenue K,Inc., Appellant.

[*1]Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Nicholas P. Hurzelerof counsel), for appellant.

Bohrer & Lukeman (Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, N.Y., of counsel), forrespondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated November 9, 2012,which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages awarding the plaintiff the principalsums of $130,000 for past pain and suffering and $140,000 for future pain and suffering,granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict as inadequate to the extent ofdirecting a new trial on the issue of damages unless it stipulated to an increase in theaward for past pain and suffering from the principal sum of $130,000 to the principalsum of $200,000, and an increase in the award for future pain and suffering from theprincipal sum of $140,000 to the principal sum of $300,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On December 18, 2009, the then 25-year-old plaintiff sustained a dislocatedtrimalleolar fracture of her right ankle as a result of falling on a sidewalk in front of thedefendant's premises. She underwent surgery, and had a plate and eight screws insertedto hold the medial malleolus in place, which resulted in a keloid scar. As a result of herinjury, the plaintiff experienced pain and stiffness on a daily basis, and had difficultykneeling and squatting. She could not run or wear dress shoes with heels. She was at riskof developing posttraumatic arthritis of the ankle in the future.

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly determined that the jury'saward for past and future pain and suffering deviated materially from what would bereasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Williams v New York City Tr.Auth., 95 AD3d 1003 [2012]; Clark v N-H Farms, Inc., 15 AD3d 605 [2005]), andproperly directed a new trial on the issue of damages unless the defendant stipulated toan increase of the awards as indicated. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Miller and Maltese, JJ.,concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.