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.
Marie CADET, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, New York City Transit Authority, Appellant-Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), entered April 5, 1996, as, upon a jury verdict, awarded the plaintiff Marie Cadet $200,000 for future pain and suffering, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same judgment as failed to award the plaintiff Marie Cadet damages for past pain and suffering.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, by deleting the award of damages to Marie Cadet for future pain and suffering, and a new trial is granted on the issue of past and future pain and suffering damages for Marie Cadet only; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the New York City Transit Authority is awarded costs payable by the respondents-appellants.
The jury's award of $200,000 for future pain and suffering is irreconcilable and inconsistent with its failure to award any damages for past pain and suffering (see, Torres v. New York City, 226 A.D.2d 701, 641 N.Y.S.2d 402). Because the jury could not have reasonably concluded that Marie Cadet's injuries were worsening over time, the verdict rendered reflects substantial confusion on the part of the jury (cf., Balmaceda v. Perez, 182 A.D.2d 983, 984, 581 N.Y.S.2d 925).
In view of our determination we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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 14, 1997
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)