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.
Donna M. SHUE, as Surviving Spouse and Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph Shue, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RED CREEK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Dominick P. Massa & Sons, Inc., and Kenneth G. Guy Roofing Co., Defendants-Respondents.
Red Creek Central School District, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Shue Roofing, Inc., and Kenneth G. Guy Roofing Co., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
On September 2, 1992, plaintiff's decedent was killed when he fell through the roof of a building owned by defendant Red Creek Central School District. Plaintiff, as surviving spouse and administratrix of decedent's estate, commenced this action alleging violations of sections 200, 240(1) and 241(6) of the Labor Law. On July 2, 1996, Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability. At the ensuing trial on damages, the jury awarded, as compensation for economic loss resulting from decedent's death, $950,000 to plaintiff and $200,000 to each of the three children of plaintiff and decedent. The court conducted a postverdict hearing on the issues of collateral source offsets and the calculation of preverdict interest on future damages. Following that hearing, the court structured the award pursuant to CPLR article 50-B.
We reject plaintiff's contention that the amount of damages awarded for economic loss is inadequate. The damages awarded constitute fair and just compensation to plaintiff and the three children for the loss of earnings, household services and parental guidance resulting from decedent's death (see, EPTL 5-4.3[a] ). We also reject plaintiff's contention that the court erred in calculating preverdict interest on future damages from the date of the liability determination rather than the date of decedent's death. Because the award was discounted to the date of the liability determination, “interest was properly charged against the present value of future damages from [that] date” (Pay v. State of New York, 87 N.Y.2d 1011, 1014, 643 N.Y.S.2d 467, 666 N.E.2d 172; see, Milbrandt v. Green Refractories Co., 79 N.Y.2d 26, 35, 580 N.Y.S.2d 147, 588 N.E.2d 45).
The court erred, however, in reducing the damage awards pursuant to CPLR 4545 by the amount of Social Security survivor benefits to which plaintiff and the children are entitled. Although CPLR 4545 authorizes such a reduction in appropriate circumstances (see, Bryant v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 592, 608-609, 695 N.Y.S.2d 39, 716 N.E.2d 1084), defendants and third-party defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing the requisite correspondence between those benefits and the items of loss in the verdict (see, Adamy v. Ziriakus, 231 A.D.2d 80, 87, 659 N.Y.S.2d 623, affd. 92 N.Y.2d 396, 681 N.Y.S.2d 463, 704 N.E.2d 216; Oden v. Chemung County Indus. Dev. Agency, 87 N.Y.2d 81, 89, 637 N.Y.S.2d 670, 661 N.E.2d 142). Social Security survivor benefits are intended to compensate for a decedent's lost earnings (see, Bryant v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra, at 608, 695 N.Y.S.2d 39, 716 N.E.2d 1084). The damages awarded for economic loss in the instant case, however, compensated plaintiff and the children not only for lost earnings, but also for loss of household services and parental guidance resulting from decedent's death. Absent an itemized verdict specifying the amount assigned to each element of loss, there is no direct correspondence between the award for economic loss and the Social Security survivor benefits to which plaintiff and the children are entitled (see, Oden v. Chemung County Indus. Dev. Agency, supra, at 87, 637 N.Y.S.2d 670, 661 N.E.2d 142).
We therefore modify the judgment by restoring the amounts deducted pursuant to CPLR 4545 from the award of damages for economic loss, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to recalculate the amount of that award.
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings.
MEMORANDUM:
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: November 12, 1999
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)