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.
Jeff E. CARTER, III, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Rasesh M. SHAH, M.D., Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict in part following a jury trial in this medical malpractice action. The jury awarded plaintiff the sum of $250,000 for past pain and suffering and, in granting plaintiff's posttrial motion, Supreme Court vacated that award and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering only unless defendant stipulated to increase the award to $500,000. Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's posttrial motion. Although a jury's assessment of damages generally is afforded great deference and will not be overturned unless it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501[c] ), “the trial court retains the discretion to set aside a verdict under appropriate circumstances” (Warnke v. Warner-Lambert Co., 21 A.D.3d 654, 657, 799 N.Y.S.2d 666). “[G]iven [the trial court's] superior opportunity to evaluate the proof and the credibility of the witnesses, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in its conclusion that the jury verdict should be [increased] under the circumstances [of this case]” (id.). Also contrary to the contention of defendant, the court properly denied that part of his posttrial motion seeking to reduce the award of damages for past pain and suffering by the amount received by plaintiff from the settling defendants (see General Obligations Law § 15-108). Because the court ordered that the award of damages for past pain and suffering be set aside, there presently is no award that is subject to reduction. As the court properly noted in its decision, however, the denial of that part of defendant's posttrial motion is without prejudice to renewal “ pending proceedings pursuant to this Decision,” i.e., the resolution of the issue of the amount of damages for past pain and suffering to which plaintiff is entitled.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
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: July 07, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)