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.
Pasquale DONATIELLO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Respondent, Darryl Barnes, Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered on or about April 2, 2002, which directed a new trial on the issue of plaintiff Pasquale Donatiello (Pasquale)'s damages unless he stipulated to reduce the jury's awards for past and future pain and suffering from $100,000 to $50,000 and from $250,000 to $75,000, respectively, directed a new trial on the issue of plaintiff Salvatore Donatiello (Salvatore)'s damages unless he stipulated to reduce the jury's award for past pain and suffering from $50,000 to $20,000, and directed a new trial on the issue of plaintiff Marianna Donatiello (Marianna)'s damages unless she stipulated to reduce the jury's award for loss of consortium from $30,000 to $15,000, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the reduction of Pasquale's jury award for past pain and suffering, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
With one exception, the trial court properly reduced the jury's awards as deviating materially from reasonable compensation under the circumstances (CPLR 5501[c]; see Donlon v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 13, 727 N.Y.S.2d 94). Pasquale's accident-related injuries were a herniated disc at L4-L5 with nerve root compression, soft tissue injuries to the neck and shoulder and sporadic limited range of motion in lumbar flexion. As a consequence, Pasquale lessened his work as a plumber for approximately a year. Pasquale still feels pain in the lower back and wears a back support belt, but there has been little reduction in his daily activities and his need for surgery is speculative. In these circumstances, the trial court's reduction of Pasquale's jury award for past pain and suffering was unwarranted (cf. Calo v. Perez, 211 A.D.2d 607, 621 N.Y.S.2d 370), but the reduction of his award for future pain and suffering was appropriate. Also appropriate under the circumstances was the trial court's reduction of Salvatore's award for past pain and suffering. Salvatore's injuries were neck and shoulder pain and headaches, but no permanent restricted range of motion or curtailment of his regular daily activities. He missed only two days of school and returned without seeing a doctor. Salvatore received regular chiropractic treatment for five months and he testified that at the time of trial he was fully recovered (cf. Molter v. Gaffney, 273 A.D.2d 773, 710 N.Y.S.2d 654). We have considered plaintiffs' other contentions and find them to be unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: January 21, 2003
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)