throbber
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 03:27 PM
`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04E2018 03:27 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124
`
`INDEX NO. 803977/2016
`INDEX NO- 803977/2016
`
`
`
`
`
`RaCaIVaD uYSCEF: 04/25/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018
`
`
`
`At a Civil Special Term of the
`Supreme Court, held in and for the
`County of Erie, State of New York, on the
`28‘l1 day of March 2018.
`
`PRESIDING: HON. PAUL B. WOJTASZEK, J.S.C.
`
`SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNTY OF ERIE
`____________.____—-——-———
`
`JAYME A. MAST,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`GERARD A. DESIMONE,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DECISION and ORDER
`
`Index #803977/2016
`
`DECISION and ORDER
`
`On August 18, 2014 the plaintiff, Jayme A. Mast (hereinafier the “plaintiff’), was injured
`
`when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident involving the defendant, Gerard A. Desimone
`
`(hereinafter the “defendant.“). As a result of this incident, an action seeking damages for bodily
`
`injuries was commenced. The matter ultimately proceeded to trial on February 1, 2018, concluding
`
`on February 13, 2018.
`
`lof6
`1 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 03:27 PM
`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04E2018 03:27 PM
`NYSCI
`3F DOC. NO. 124
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124
`
`INDEX NO. 803977/2016
`INDEX NO~ 803977/2016
`
`
`
`
`
`RaCaIVaD uYSCEF: 04/25/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND:
`
`The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in the happening of the accident and
`
`that the accident resulted in a “serious injury” pursuant to New York Insurance Law 5102(d).
`
`The plaintiff claimed entitlement to damages based upon the following three “serious
`
`injury” categories:
`
`0 Permanent consequential limitation of use ofa body organ or member;
`
`0
`
`Significant limitation of use of a body function or system; and
`
`u A medically determined injury or impairment of a non—permanent nature
`which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the
`material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily
`activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days
`immediately following the occurrence of the injury or
`impairment
`(Insurance Law 5102(d)).
`
`Extensive litigation and motion practice was conducted in this action up to and during the
`
`time of the trial. The matter proceeded to trial, and on February 13, 2018 after due deliberation
`
`the jury unanimously found the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the
`
`plaintiff to sustain two categories of “serious injury,” The jury found the plaintiff sustained a
`
`qualifying injury under the significant limitation and 90/180 categories, but notably the jury
`
`determined that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent consequential injury as a result of the
`
`accident. The only monetary award made by the jury was for past pain and suffering in the amount
`
`of $120,000. The jury verdict was reported to the Court, and this concluded the trial proceedings.
`
`PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
`
`The plaintiff now moves pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) and 5501(c) for an Order setting aside
`
`the jury verdict and increasing the jury’s award for both past and future pain and suffering as well
`
`as future economic loss. Alternatively, the plaintiff asks for a new trial on damages only. The
`
`plaintiff argues that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
`
`20f6
`2 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 03:27 PM
`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04E2018 03:27 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124
`
`INDEX NO. 803977/2016
`INDEX NO- 803977/2016
`
`
`
`
`
`RMCMIVMD YSCEF: 04/25/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018
`
`In support of her motion, the plaintiff submitted the Attorney Affirmation of Nicholas J.
`
`Shemik, Esq. with attached exhibits sworn to on February 26, 2018 (hereinafter the “Shemik
`
`Affirmation”). The defendant’s opposition papers consist of the Attorney Affirmation of Leah A.
`
`Costanzo, Esq. with an attached exhibit sworn to on March 16, 2018 (hereinafter the “Costanzo
`
`Affirmation”).
`
`Counsel for plaintiff and defendant personally appeared for oral argument on March 28,
`
`2018 in further support of their respective positions.
`
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
`
`This Court has reviewed all submissions, and heard oral argument of all parties. A Court
`
`must be very methodical and selective when substituting its own judgment for that of a jury:
`
`CPLR§ 4404(a). Post trial motion for judgment and new trial:
`
`Motion after trial where jury required. After a trial of a cause of action or issue
`triable of right by a jury, upon the motion of any party or on its own initiative, the
`court may set aside a verdict or any judgment entered thereon and direct that
`judgment be entered in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law or it
`may order a new trial of a cause ofaction or separable issue where the verdict is
`contrary to the weight ofthe evidence, in the interest of justice or where the jury
`cannot agree after being kept together for as long as is deemed reasonable by the
`court (CPLR § 4404(a)) (emphasis added).
`
`The law in New York is very well-settled when it comes to disturbing jury verdicts. Where
`
`a party moves to set aside a jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence, as plaintiff does
`
`here, the motion should not be granted unless the preponderance of the evidence in the movant’s
`
`favor is so great that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the
`
`evidence (Lolik v. Big VSupermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Ruddock v. Happell, 307 AD2d
`
`719, 720, 763 NYSZd 868 [4th Dept 2003]) (internal citation omitted). If “the verdict is one that
`
`3of6
`3 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 03:27 PM
`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04E2018 03:27 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124
`
`INDEX NO. 803977/2016
`INDEX NO- 803977/2016
`
`
`
`
`
`RaCaIVaD vYSCEF: 04/25/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018
`
`
`
`reasonable persons could have rendered after receiving conflicting evidence, the court should not
`
`substitute its judgment for that of the jury” (Ruddock, 307 AD2d at 720).
`
`Whether a particular factual determination is against the weight of the evidence is itself a
`
`factual question, and the question as to whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence
`
`“involves what is in large part a discretionary balancing of many factors” (Cohen v. Hallmark
`
`Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498, 499 [1978]).
`
`The standard is clear and seemingly uncontested by the parties here, and this Court is very
`
`conscious of the importance of not invading the province of a clear—headed jury that has weighed
`
`the evidence, listened intently to clear and agreed upon jury instructions, deliberated, and then
`
`reached a unanimous verdict on all questions.
`
`Clearly it is within the province of the jury to determine issues of credibility, and great
`
`deference should be given to the jury because it has the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses
`
`(see Sauter v. Calabretta, 103 AD3d 1220, 959 NYS2d 579 [4th Dept 2013]; Kim v. New York City
`
`Transit Authority, 87 AD3d 531, 928 NYSZd 315 [2d Dept 2011}). The jury in the present case
`
`saw and heard the testimony from the actors involved in the incident as well as experts who offered
`
`opinion testimony.
`
`The jury assessed their respective credibility, and then unanimously
`
`determined the case. Great deference should be given to this process generally, and this Court
`
`must afford such deference to the jury in this case because the evidence did not so preponderate in
`
`favor of the plaintiff that the jury verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of
`
`the evidence (see Sauter, 103 AD3d at 1220). To invade the deliberative process and province of
`
`the jury under the facts in this case would be an abuse of discretionary power.
`
`Plaintiff argues that the jury determination with respect to past pain and suffering, future
`
`pain and suffering, and future economic loss deviates materially from reasonable compensation
`
`4of6
`4 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 03:27 PM
`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04E2018 03:27 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124
`
`INDEX NO. 803977/2016
`INDEX NO- 803977/2016
`
`
`
`
`
`RMCMIVMD YSCEF: 04/25/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018
`
`
`
`due to, among other arguments, the trial testimony of Dr. Fishkin, Dr. Landi, Robert Tremp, Dr.
`
`Lichtenstein, and the plaintiff herself.
`
`In succinct terms, the plaintiff argues that her evidence in
`
`the form of “testimony and documentary proof was in complete and absolute agreement on all
`
`issues regarding [plaintiffs] injuries, their causation, and their severity” (Shemik Affirmation,
`
`$123). Specifically, that plaintiff suffered a permanent LS-Sl fusion secondary to a herniated disc
`
`and that her work-life expectancy wili be limited by 50% (Shemik Affirmation, 1123).
`
`However, when questioned during oral argument in support of this motion, plaintiff’s
`
`counsel conceded that there was, in fact, conflicting proof regarding the likelihood, severity, and
`
`causation of plaintiff’s alleged future pain and suffering (see Melnick v. Chase, 148 AD3d 1589,
`
`1590 [4‘h Dept 2017]) (holding that ajury verdict regarding future damages should not be disturbed
`
`as against the weight of the evidence where there is conflicting proof concerning the likelihood,
`
`severity, and causation of alleged future pain and suffering).
`
`The jury in this case heard extensive proof from both parties as to all issues in dispute.
`
`Once deliberations began, the jury among other things asked the Court to read back the entire trial
`
`testimony of both the plaintiff as well as the defendant’s examining physician, Dr. Landi. During
`
`deliberations the jury also asked to review the plaintiff‘s primary care records created in the days
`
`immediately after the accident — a key timefrarne in this case because part of the defendant’s
`
`argument against damages was that the lower back injury that became the primary focus of
`
`plaintiffs allegations was not a body part she complained of immediately after the accident.
`
`The jury deliberations lasted. over the course of two days, and the verdict was ultimately
`
`unanimous. As stated earlier, it is within the province of the jury to determine issues of credibility,
`
`and great deference should be given to the jury because it has the opportunity to see and hear the
`
`witnesses (see Saurer v. Calabretla, 103 AD3d 1220, 959 NYSZd 579 [4“1 Dept 2013]; Kim v. New
`
`50f6
`5 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04/25/2018 03:27 PM
`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 04E2018 03:27 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 124
`
`INDEX NO. 803977/2016
`INDEX NO- 803977/2016
`
`
`
`
`
`R+.C+.IV+.D \tYSCEF: 04/25/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2018
`
`
`
`York City Transit Authority, 87 AD3d 531. 928 NYS2d 315 [2d Dept 201 1]). The credibility of
`
`the witnesses, the truthfulness and accuracy ofthe testimony. whether contradicted or not, and the
`
`significance of weaknesses and discrepancies are all issues for the trier of the facts (Somkin v.
`
`Food Fair Stores. Inc, 51 Adld 592 [2d Dept 1976]).
`
`Conflicting medical expert testimony raises credibility issues for thejury to detemtine. and
`
`that is exactly what occurred in the trial of this matter (see Campr) v. Nearly, 52 AD3d 1194 [4”‘
`
`Dept 2008]).
`
`In light of this clear standard, and upon review of the extensive proof presented to
`
`the jury for its consideration, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the jury verdict was against
`
`the weight of the evidence.
`
`As such. the plaintiff has failed to raise an issue on this motion that would obligate this
`
`Court to set aside the jury verdict, increase the jury‘s award, andfor order a new trial.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED, that the plaintiff‘s motion is denied in its entirety, and it is further
`
`ORDERED, that this shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court. The delivery of
`
`a copy of this Decision and Order by this Court shall not const'
`./
`
`te notice of entry.
`
`DATED: Buffalo, New York
`
`,
`
`April ff, 2018
`
`
`HON. PAUL B.
`Justice of the Supreme Court
`
`6of6
`6 of 6
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket