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.
Paulette SHAW, Respondent, v. Dolores JACOBS, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Dolores Jacobs and Herbert Jacobs, Jr., appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated August 13, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding them 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, and the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $25,000 for past pain and suffering.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, and a new trial on the issue of damages is granted, with costs to abide the event.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the trial court properly submitted to the jury the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) (see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088). However, we agree with their contention that the jury verdict was inconsistent. The jury found that the plaintiff sustained an injury which resulted in a “permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102[d]), yet failed to award any damages for future pain and suffering. The failure to award any future damages cannot be reconciled with the finding of permanent injury (see, Sescila v. Garine, 225 A.D.2d 684, 639 N.Y.S.2d 830; Laylon v. Shaver, 187 A.D.2d 983, 590 N.Y.S.2d 615; see also, Cochetti v. Gralow, 192 A.D.2d 974, 597 N.Y.S.2d 234). Accordingly, a new trial on the issue of damages is warranted.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
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 29, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)