Shubbuck v. Conners

New York Court of Appeals

Shubbuck v. Conners

939 N.E.2d 137, 15 N.Y.3d 871

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 939 N.E.2d 137 (Shubbuck v. Conners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shubbuck v. Conners, 939 N.E.2d 137, 15 N.Y.3d 871 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to defendants, by remitting the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

Plaintiff’s own testimony, without more, was insufficient to establish by a reasonable certainty his loss of future wages as a result of the accident. In this case, the W-2 forms and tax returns that plaintiff introduced demonstrated his yearly income post-accident but they were not probative of a reduction in future wages as a result of the accident because they did not compare his pre- and post-accident income nor compare his post-accident income with the income of similarly situated employees in plaintiffs company. Accordingly, there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to defendants, by remitting the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

Plaintiff’s own testimony, without more, was insufficient to establish by a reasonable certainty his loss of future wages as a result of the accident. In this case, the W-2 forms and tax returns that plaintiff introduced demonstrated his yearly income post-accident but they were not probative of a reduction in future wages as a result of the accident because they did not compare his pre- and post-accident income nor compare his post-accident income with the income of similarly situated employees in plaintiffs company. Accordingly, there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

939 N.E.2d 137, 15 N.Y.3d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shubbuck-v-conners-ny-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack