Mitchell v. Port of Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitchell v. Port of Authority

65 A.D.3d 943, 885 N.Y.S.2d 489

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.3d 943 (Mitchell v. Port of Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mitchell v. Port of Authority, 65 A.D.3d 943, 885 N.Y.S.2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[944]*944Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered April 7, 2009, which, upon defendant’s motion to set aside the jury’s verdict finding it liable and awarding plaintiff $480,000 for future pain and suffering and plaintiffs motion to set aside the award of $20,000 for past pain and suffering, set aside the verdict in its entirety and directed a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that the parties presented sharply conflicting evidence as to whether defendant’s evacuation plan for the World Trade Center, which required plaintiff to walk down 100 flights of stairs after the bombing on February 26, 1993, was a substantial factor in causing her to slip and fall 10 days later. As to damages, while the jury awarded plaintiff $480,000 for future pain and suffering for a period of 24 years, it awarded her only $20,000 for past pain and suffering for the 16 years elapsed between the accident and the trial. In view of the severity of plaintiffs injury, the sharply contested issue of causation, and the inexplicable inconsistency of the damages awards, an impermissible compromise verdict is, as the trial court found, “strongly indicated” (see Moreno v Thaler, 255 AD2d 195 [1998]). Concur—Tom, J.P., McGuire, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[944]*944Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered April 7, 2009, which, upon defendant’s motion to set aside the jury’s verdict finding it liable and awarding plaintiff $480,000 for future pain and suffering and plaintiffs motion to set aside the award of $20,000 for past pain and suffering, set aside the verdict in its entirety and directed a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that the parties presented sharply conflicting evidence as to whether defendant’s evacuation plan for the World Trade Center, which required plaintiff to walk down 100 flights of stairs after the bombing on February 26, 1993, was a substantial factor in causing her to slip and fall 10 days later. As to damages, while the jury awarded plaintiff $480,000 for future pain and suffering for a period of 24 years, it awarded her only $20,000 for past pain and suffering for the 16 years elapsed between the accident and the trial. In view of the severity of plaintiffs injury, the sharply contested issue of causation, and the inexplicable inconsistency of the damages awards, an impermissible compromise verdict is, as the trial court found, “strongly indicated” (see Moreno v Thaler, 255 AD2d 195 [1998]). Concur—Tom, J.P., McGuire, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 943, 885 N.Y.S.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-port-of-authority-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack