Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Shawn DELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, et al., Defendants-Respondents. [And a Third-Party Action].
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered September 21, 2004, after a jury trial, inter alia, reducing the jury's award for past lost earnings from $320,040 to $144,440, vacating the jury's award for future earnings of $90,000 over three years and awarding $0 instead, and awarding plaintiffs $0 for future pain and suffering and future loss of services, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court should not have disturbed the jury's award of $320,040 for past lost earnings even though his attorney argued in summation that past lost earnings amounted to only $144,440. The only possible basis for the jury's larger award would be a finding that plaintiff, an apprentice ironworker at the time of the accident, had become a journeyman ironworker before a re-injury prevented him from continuing in that line of work, and had thus begun receiving a substantially higher wage. No such showing was made. The record is simply devoid of evidence that plaintiff ever achieved journeyman status before leaving ironwork. The trial court also properly vacated the $90,000 award for plaintiff's future lost earnings, and properly awarded plaintiff no damages instead, since the record contains no evidentiary support for plaintiff's expert's pessimistic assumptions concerning plaintiff's future earning potential, and legally insufficient support for the very generous assumptions concerning what plaintiff's future earning potential would have been had he not been injured (see Harris v. City of New York, 2 A.D.3d 782, 784, 770 N.Y.S.2d 380 [2003], lv. dismissed 2 N.Y.3d 758, 778 N.Y.S.2d 773, 811 N.E.2d 35 [2004]; Kaylor v. Amerada Hess Corp., 141 A.D.2d 331, 332, 528 N.Y.S.2d 845 [1988], lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 704, 537 N.Y.S.2d 491, 534 N.E.2d 330 [1989] ). We have considered the $0 jury awards for future pain and suffering and future loss of services and find that they are supported by evidence showing that any continuing pain and suffering or loss of services is attributable to an unrelated re-injury.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 06, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)