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.
Jesse CINTRON, Jr., etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered January 4, 2007, which granted defendant's motion to set aside a jury verdict on damages to the extent of granting a new trial unless plaintiff stipulated to reduce the $20 million award for past and future pain and suffering to $2.5 million, before a further 50% reduction for plaintiff's own negligence, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, without costs, to increase the stipulation amount to $4.75 million, before a further 50% reduction for plaintiff's own negligence, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The infant plaintiff was 14 years old when he suffered a traumatic brain injury and hip fracture after being hit by a subway car as he was painting graffiti in a subway tunnel. His injuries included such cognitive impairments as significant deficits in perceptual organization, processing speed and memory; residual weakness principally in the left hand; pain and headaches; and depression. The awards for pain and suffering, as set by the jury, were clearly excessive, and the trial court correctly found that they deviated “materially from what would be reasonable compensation” (CPLR 5501[c] ); see Paek v. City of New York, 28 A.D.3d 207, 812 N.Y.S.2d 83 [2006] lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 805, 831 N.Y.S.2d 107, 863 N.E.2d 112 [2007]. However, although the court reasoned that plaintiff's injuries were not as severe as other brain trauma cases it analyzed, we cannot agree that $2.5 million is sufficient compensation for past and future pain and suffering. We thus modify the court's figure to the extent indicated.
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: April 17, 2008
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)