I '
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2018 11:44 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
`
`COURT
`SUPREME
`OF THE
`OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY
`-----------------------------------------------------------------X
`CLARA
`GARRETT,
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`Index
`
`# 152892/13
`
`against
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ORDER WITH
`NOTICE
`OF
`ENTRY
`
`NEW YORK
`
`CITY
`
`TRANSIT
`
`AUTHORITY,
`
`----------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLEASE
`
`TAKE
`
`NOTICE
`
`that
`
`the
`
`within
`
`is a true
`
`copy
`
`of an Order
`
`duly
`
`entered
`
`in the
`
`office
`
`of
`
`the
`
`clerk
`
`of
`
`the
`
`within
`
`named
`
`Court
`
`on March
`
`30,
`
`2018.
`
`Dated:
`
`New York,
`April
`17,
`
`New York
`2018
`
`Yours,
`
`etc.,
`
`BURNS
`Attorne
`
`&
`
`for
`
`IS, ES
`Plain
`
`S.
`
`B
`
`.
`.. JASOÑ
`STEINBERG
`33 Broadway,
`Suite
`New York,
`10279
`212
`393-1000
`
`NY
`
`900
`
`TO:
`
`Lawrence
`Esq.
`Heisler,
`for Defendant
`Attorneys
`130
`Livingston
`Street
`NY 11201
`
`Brooklyn,
`
`1 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2018 11:44 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`: NEW YORK
`ÏLED
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`60
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`03/30/2018
`
`09
`
`i 50
`
`AM|
`
`INDEX NO. 152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
`152892/2013
`INDEX
`NO.
`
`RECEIVE
`
`D NYSCEF:
`
`03/30/2018
`
`SUPREME
`
`COURT
`OF THE
`NEW YORK
`
`STATE
`COUNTY
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`PRESENT:
`
`HON.
`
`KATHRYN
`
`E.FREED
`
`PART
`
`2
`
`Justice
`
`--------------------------------------..------------------X
`
`CLARA GARRETT.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- v -
`
`NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
`
`AUTHORITY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`-------------•·-----------------------------X
`
`INDEX NO.
`
`152892/2013
`
`MOTION SEQ. NO.
`
`003
`
`'
`
`DECISION
`
`AND ORDER·
`
`The following
`57, 58
`
`e-filed
`
`documents,
`
`listed
`
`by NYSCEF
`
`document
`
`number
`
`47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
`
`were
`
`read on this motion
`
`to/for
`
`SET ASIDE
`
`VERDICT
`
`Upon
`
`the foregoing
`
`documents,
`
`it
`
`is ordered
`
`that
`
`the motion
`
`is denied.
`
`Defendant
`
`New York
`
`City
`
`Transit
`
`Authority
`
`moves
`
`for an order:
`
`1) pursuant
`
`to CPLR 4401
`
`and
`
`4404,
`
`setting
`
`aside
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`verdict
`
`rendered
`
`against
`
`it and
`
`dismissing
`
`the
`
`action,
`
`or,
`
`in the
`
`alternative;
`
`2) granting
`
`defendant
`
`a new trial
`
`on the
`
`ground
`
`that
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`was
`
`contrary
`
`to the
`
`weight
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`and
`
`excessive;
`
`or
`
`3)
`
`conditionally
`
`reducing
`
`the
`
`damages
`
`awarded
`
`plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Clara
`
`Garrett
`
`opposes
`
`the motion.
`
`After
`
`oral
`
`argument,
`
`and
`
`after
`
`a review
`
`to
`
`of
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`papers
`
`and
`
`the
`
`relevant
`
`statutes
`
`and case
`
`law,
`
`the motion
`
`is denied.
`
`152892/2013 GARRETT, CLARA vs. TRANSIT AUTHORITY
`Motion No. 003
`
`Page 1 of 9
`
`1 of
`
`9
`
`2 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2018 11:44 AM
`09:50 W
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`NEW YORK
`FILED:
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`60
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`03/30/2018
`
`INDEX NO. 152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
`152892/2013
`INDEX
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`03/30/2018
`
`FACTUAL
`
`AND PROCEDURAL
`
`BACKGROUND:
`
`This
`
`case
`
`arises
`
`from an incident
`
`on September
`
`26,
`
`2012
`
`in which
`
`plaintiff,
`
`approximately
`
`65 at
`
`the time,
`
`was
`
`injured
`
`when
`
`she slipped
`
`and
`
`fell
`
`on a defective
`
`stairway
`
`located
`
`at
`
`the Union
`
`Square
`
`subway
`
`station.
`
`Doc.
`
`1.'
`
`Following
`
`a trial
`
`held
`
`on
`
`July
`
`26,
`
`28,.
`
`and
`
`31,
`
`2017,
`
`a jury
`
`determined
`
`that
`
`defendant
`
`was
`
`liable
`
`because
`
`it had
`
`constructive
`
`notice
`
`of an unsafe
`
`condition
`
`on
`
`pain
`
`the stairway
`
`and awarded
`
`plaintiff
`
`$40,000
`
`for past
`
`pain
`
`and suffering
`
`and $160,000
`
`for
`
`future
`
`and suffering.
`
`Does.
`
`45,
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`the
`
`sole
`
`witness
`
`to the
`
`accident,
`
`testified
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`that
`
`the
`
`accident
`
`occurred
`
`at
`
`approximately
`
`12:30-12:45
`
`p.m.
`
`when,
`
`while
`
`she was
`
`about
`
`to descend
`
`the
`
`stairway,
`
`she stepped
`
`off
`
`the
`
`landing
`
`with
`
`her
`
`right
`
`foot
`
`into
`
`a "cake
`
`like
`
`substance",
`
`"started
`
`to slip
`
`between
`
`the
`
`first
`
`and second
`
`step"
`
`although
`
`she was
`
`upright
`
`second
`
`she slipped
`
`off
`
`and,
`
`by
`
`step,
`
`third
`
`step. Doc.
`
`49,
`
`.
`
`at p.
`
`I3,
`
`I5,
`
`18.
`
`She
`
`then
`
`fell
`
`and
`
`her wrist
`
`struck
`
`the stairs.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 17.
`
`She maintained
`
`that
`
`the edge
`
`of
`
`the third
`
`step was worn
`
`and shiny
`
`and that
`
`a photograph
`
`of
`
`the stairs marked
`
`as an
`
`exhibit
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`reflected
`
`that
`
`the
`
`step was
`
`in that
`
`condition.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p.
`
`14-15.
`
`The
`
`photograph
`
`of
`
`the stairs
`
`was
`
`taken
`
`"right
`
`around
`
`the incident
`
`or a couple
`
`of months
`
`afterwards."
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p.
`
`13.
`
`taken
`
`According
`
`to plaintiff,
`
`the photograph
`
`was
`
`by an investigator
`
`or a good
`
`Samaritan.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 14, 78.
`
`After
`
`the
`
`incident,
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`taken
`
`to
`
`the
`
`hospital,
`
`where
`
`she
`
`learned
`
`her wrist
`
`was
`
`fractured,
`
`and
`
`doctors
`
`reset
`
`the
`
`bone
`
`in her wrist,
`
`causing
`
`her
`
`a great
`
`deal
`
`of pain.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p.
`
`22-23.
`
`She was
`
`discharged
`
`from
`
`the
`
`hospital
`
`that
`
`evening
`
`at approximately
`
`11 p.m.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at
`
`' Unless otherwise
`
`indicated,
`
`all
`
`references
`
`are to the documents
`
`filed with NYSCEF
`
`in this matter.
`
`152892/2O13 GARRETT, CLARA vs. TRANSIT AUTHORITY
`Motion No. 003
`
`Page 2 of 9
`
`2 of.9
`
`3 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2018 11:44 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`: NEW YORK
`FILED
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`60
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`03/30/2018
`
`09:50
`
`ANG
`
`INDEX NO. 152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
`INDEX
`NO.
`152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`03/30/2018
`
`p. 22.
`
`She wore
`
`a cast
`
`on her
`
`dominant
`
`hand
`
`for
`
`approximately
`
`2-3 months.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 23,
`
`25.
`
`While
`
`she wore
`
`the cast,
`
`she
`
`had
`
`a lot
`
`of pain,
`
`could
`
`not
`
`drive,
`
`and
`
`needed
`
`assistance
`
`with
`
`basic
`
`activities
`
`such
`
`as cleaning
`
`and
`
`bathing.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 24-26.
`
`Although
`
`plaintiff
`
`admitted
`
`that
`
`she
`
`went
`
`on a cruise
`
`approximately
`
`2 months
`
`after
`
`the
`
`incident,
`
`she maintained
`
`that
`
`she went
`
`with
`
`a
`
`Doc.
`
`at p. 27-28.
`
`friend
`
`who
`
`assisted
`
`her with
`
`activities
`
`of daily
`
`living.
`
`49,
`
`Approximately
`
`2-3 weeks
`
`after
`
`the accident,
`
`plaintiff
`
`visited
`
`Dr.
`
`Fragner,
`
`an orthopedist.
`
`Doc.
`
`49, at p. 26.
`
`She
`
`saw Dr.
`
`Fragner
`
`every
`
`2-3 weeks
`
`for
`
`a total
`
`of 5-6
`
`visits.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 27.
`
`She also went
`
`to physical
`
`therapy
`
`for
`
`several
`
`months.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 30.
`
`Prior
`
`to the
`
`accident,
`
`plaintiff,
`
`a right-handed
`
`retired
`
`teacher,
`
`played
`
`tennis
`
`as a bobby.
`
`Doc.
`
`49, at p. 6-7.
`
`Since
`
`the
`
`accident,
`
`plaintiff
`
`has been
`
`unable
`
`to play
`
`tennis.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 32.
`
`She wears
`
`a wrist
`
`brace
`
`for
`
`support
`
`every
`
`day
`
`except
`
`when
`
`she bathes
`
`or sleeps.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 32.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`continues
`
`to
`
`have
`
`pain
`
`in
`
`her
`
`wrist,
`
`takes
`
`Aleve
`
`as needed,
`
`and
`
`still
`
`has
`
`difficulty
`
`performing
`
`certain
`
`tasks.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p..33-34.
`
`.
`
`On
`
`cross-examination,
`
`plaintiff
`
`admitted
`
`that,
`
`at her
`
`50-h
`
`hearing,
`
`she
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`she
`
`fell
`
`because
`
`she slipped
`
`on cake
`
`which
`
`was
`
`on the steps,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`she did
`
`not
`
`see that
`
`food
`
`before
`
`her
`
`fall.
`
`Doc.
`
`44.
`
`She also
`
`admitted
`
`49,
`
`at p. 40,
`
`that,
`
`at her deposition,
`
`she said.that
`
`she had
`
`cake
`
`on
`
`her
`
`right
`
`shoe
`
`but was
`
`not
`
`certain
`
`whether
`
`there
`
`was
`
`cake
`
`on her
`
`left
`
`foot.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 59-60.
`
`She
`
`conceded
`
`that
`
`the
`
`cake
`
`contributed
`
`to the
`
`accident
`
`but
`
`did
`
`not
`
`cause
`
`it. Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`further
`
`stated
`
`that,
`
`although
`
`she could
`
`not drive
`
`for 2 ½ months
`
`after
`
`the incident,'she
`
`was
`
`thereafter
`
`able
`
`to drive
`
`again.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 48.
`
`.
`
`152892/2013 GARRETT, CLARA vs. TRANSIT AUTHORITY
`Motion No. 003
`
`Page 3 of 9
`
`3
`
`of
`
`9
`
`4 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2018 11:44 AM
`09:50 W
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`NEW YORK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`FILED:
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`60 .
`
`03/30/2018
`
`INDEX NO. 152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
`INDEX
`NO.
`152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`03/30/2018
`
`Plaintiff
`
`conceded
`
`that
`
`she did
`
`not
`
`know
`
`exactly
`
`when
`
`the photograph
`
`of
`
`the
`
`stairway
`
`was
`
`taken
`
`but
`
`said
`
`she
`
`believed
`
`she was
`
`there
`
`when
`
`it was
`
`taken.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 56,
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`then
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`she was
`
`not
`
`certain
`
`whether
`
`she was·present
`
`when
`
`the photograph
`
`was
`
`taken.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 77-79.
`
`She was
`
`not
`
`certain
`
`whether
`
`was
`
`taken
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of
`
`the
`
`accident
`
`or
`
`"a
`
`couple
`
`[of] months
`
`later."
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 57.
`
`However,
`
`she maintained
`
`that
`
`the
`
`photograph
`
`the photograph
`/
`
`depicted
`
`the stairway
`
`she fell
`
`on. Doc.-49,
`
`at p. 79.
`
`Surgery
`
`has never
`
`been
`
`performed
`
`on plaintiff's
`
`right
`
`wrist
`
`and
`
`she last
`
`visited
`
`a doctor
`
`for
`
`the wrist
`
`in 2015.
`
`Doc.
`
`49,
`
`at p. 61.
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`expert,
`
`Robert
`
`Schwartzberg,
`
`a licensed
`
`professional
`
`engineer,
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`stairs
`
`are comprised
`
`of
`
`risers,
`
`treads,
`
`and
`
`nosing.'
`nosing
`
`Doc.
`
`50,
`
`at p. 15.
`
`The
`
`riser
`
`is the
`
`vertical
`
`face
`
`of
`
`a step. Doc.
`
`at p. 9.
`
`50,
`
`The
`
`tread
`
`is the
`
`horizontal
`
`part
`
`of
`
`the
`
`step.
`
`Doc.
`
`50,
`
`at p. 9.
`
`The
`
`nosing,
`
`or
`
`"forward
`
`most
`
`part"
`
`of a step,
`
`is the part
`
`one's
`
`foot
`
`usually
`
`lands
`
`on and
`
`is supposed
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`good
`
`traction.
`
`Doc.
`
`50,
`
`at p.
`
`12-13,
`
`I5.
`
`If
`
`the
`
`nosing
`
`is slick
`
`or
`
`slippery,
`
`one
`
`can
`
`slide
`
`off
`
`of
`
`it. Doc.
`
`50,
`
`at p. 15.
`
`When
`
`Schwartzberg
`
`measured
`
`the treads
`
`and risers,
`
`he found
`
`that
`
`they were
`
`not
`
`of uniform
`
`size
`
`and thus
`
`violated
`
`accepted
`
`reasonably
`
`engineering
`
`standards.
`
`Doc.
`
`50, at p. 19-21.
`
`He
`
`further
`
`observed
`
`that
`
`the
`
`treads
`
`were
`
`not
`
`level,
`
`which
`
`could
`
`cause
`
`an
`
`individual
`
`to lean
`
`forward
`
`when
`
`descending
`
`the
`
`steps.
`
`Doc.
`
`50,
`
`at p. 22.
`
`Additionally,
`
`Schwartzberg
`
`measured
`
`the
`
`coefficient
`
`of
`
`friction
`
`on the third
`
`tread
`
`down,
`
`where
`
`plaintiff
`
`allegedly
`
`fell,
`
`and
`
`found
`
`it
`
`to be between
`
`.39
`
`and
`
`.47,
`
`below
`
`the accepted
`
`standard
`
`of
`
`.5.
`
`Doc.
`
`50, at p. 24-25.
`
`152892/2013 GARRETT, CLARA vs. TRANSIT AUTHORITY
`Motion No. 003
`
`.
`
`Page 4 of 9
`.
`
`4 of
`
`9
`
`5 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2018 11:44 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`: NEW YORK
`FILED
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`60
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`03/30/2018
`
`09:50
`
`ANG
`
`INDEX NO. 152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
`NO.
`152892/2013
`INDEX
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`03/30/2018
`
`Schwartzberg
`
`opined,
`
`based
`
`on the photograph
`
`of
`
`the
`
`stairway
`
`marked
`
`into
`
`evidence,
`
`that
`
`the nosings
`
`on the
`
`steps were
`
`worn,
`
`uneven
`
`and
`
`irregular.
`
`Doc.
`
`25,
`
`at par.
`
`26.
`
`He
`
`postulated
`
`that,
`
`if plaintiff
`
`stepped
`
`in cake
`
`with
`
`her
`
`right
`
`foot
`
`on the
`
`first
`
`step
`
`down,
`
`and
`
`then
`
`tried
`
`to regain
`
`her
`
`on the third
`
`she would
`
`slide
`
`off
`
`of
`
`the third
`
`since
`
`balance
`
`by placing
`
`her
`
`left
`
`foot
`
`step
`
`down,
`
`step
`
`it had
`
`a low
`
`coefficient
`
`of
`
`friction
`
`and was
`
`on an angle.
`
`Doc.
`
`25,
`
`at p. 27.
`
`He
`
`further
`
`opined.
`
`based
`
`on the photograph
`
`and
`
`his measurements,
`
`that
`
`the
`
`condition
`
`of
`
`the
`
`stairs
`
`existed
`
`for
`
`"many
`
`years"
`
`prior
`
`to the accident.
`
`Doc.
`
`25, at p. 28.
`
`In rendering
`
`his opinion,
`
`Schwartzberg
`
`relied
`
`on the photograph
`
`of
`
`the stairway,
`
`the notice
`
`the
`
`bill
`
`and
`
`his
`
`inspection
`
`of
`
`the
`
`on August
`
`Doc.
`
`50,
`
`at
`
`of claim,
`
`of particulars,
`
`stairway
`
`3, 2014.
`
`p. 3, 6, 8. His
`
`inspection
`
`revealed
`
`that
`
`nothing
`
`more
`
`than
`
`"cosmetic
`
`changes"
`
`to the stairs
`
`between
`
`the time
`
`the photograph
`
`was
`
`taken
`
`after
`
`the accident
`
`and the date
`
`of his
`
`inspection.
`
`Doc.
`
`50, at par.
`
`17.
`
`CONTENTIONS
`
`OF THE PARTIES:
`
`Defendant
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`must
`
`be set aside
`
`as against
`
`the weight
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`because
`
`the testimony
`
`of plaintiff
`
`and Schwartzberg
`
`were
`
`incredible
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law and
`
`failed
`
`to establish
`
`that
`
`it had constructive
`
`notice
`
`ofthe
`
`alleged
`
`It
`
`awards
`
`for
`
`past
`
`and
`
`future
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`must
`
`be set
`
`aside
`
`since
`
`they
`
`are
`
`excessive
`
`and
`
`contrary
`
`to the weight
`
`of
`
`the evidence.
`
`defect.
`
`further
`
`asserts
`
`that
`
`the damages
`
`In opposition,
`
`plaintiff
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the jury
`
`had
`
`sufficient
`
`evidence
`
`to conclude
`
`that
`
`the
`
`unsafe
`
`condition
`
`of
`
`the
`
`third
`
`step
`
`prevented
`
`her
`
`from
`
`recovering
`
`from
`
`her
`
`fall
`
`after
`
`stepping
`
`into
`
`152892/2013 GARRETT, CLARA vs. TRANSIT AUTHORITY
`'
`Motion No. 003
`
`Page 5 of 9
`
`5
`
`of
`
`9
`
`6 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2018 11:44 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`: NEW YORK
`(FILED
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`60
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`03/30/2018
`
`09:50
`
`A$
`
`INDEX NO. 152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
`152892/2013
`NO.
`INDEX
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`03/30/2018
`
`cake
`
`on
`
`the
`
`first
`
`step.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`further
`
`asserts
`
`that
`
`it
`
`"moves
`
`for
`
`additur"
`
`based
`
`on CPLR
`
`5501
`
`since
`
`the amount
`
`awarded
`
`to her was
`
`inadequate.
`
`.
`
`LEGAL
`
`CONCLUSIONS:
`
`Initially,
`
`defendant's
`
`motion
`
`is denied
`
`due
`
`to its
`
`failure
`
`to annex
`
`a complete
`
`copy
`
`of
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`transcript
`
`to its motion,
`
`thereby
`
`preventing
`
`this Court
`
`from
`
`conducting
`
`a meaningful
`
`review
`
`118 AD3d
`
`548
`
`of all
`
`of
`
`the relevant
`
`issues
`
`it
`
`raises
`
`on this
`
`application.
`
`See Gorbea
`
`v DeCohen,
`
`(l"
`
`Dept
`
`2014).
`
`In any
`
`event,
`
`the motion
`
`to set aside
`
`the verdict
`
`as against
`
`the weight
`
`of
`
`the evidence
`
`would
`
`be denied.
`
`CPLR 4404(a)
`
`allows
`
`a court
`
`to set aside
`
`a verdict
`
`or
`
`judgment
`
`entered
`
`after
`
`trial,
`
`and
`
`direct
`
`judgmeitt
`
`in favor
`
`of
`
`the moving
`
`party
`
`or grant
`
`a new trial,
`
`where
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`is contrary
`
`to
`
`the weight
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence.
`
`In order
`
`for
`
`to determine
`
`that
`
`a verdict
`
`is against
`
`the weight
`
`a court
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence,
`
`it must
`
`find
`
`that
`
`"there
`
`is
`
`simply
`
`no
`
`valid
`
`line
`
`of
`
`reasoning
`
`and
`
`permissible
`
`.
`
`inferences
`
`which
`
`could
`
`possibly
`
`lead
`
`rational
`
`[individuals]
`
`to the conclusion
`
`reached
`
`by
`
`the jury
`
`on the basis
`
`of
`
`the evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial."
`
`Cohen
`
`v Hallmark
`
`Cards,
`
`Inc.,
`
`45 NY2d
`
`493,
`
`499
`
`(1978).
`
`Thus,
`
`if
`
`"it
`
`can
`
`be said
`
`that
`
`the evidence
`
`is such
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`not
`
`be utterly
`
`irrational
`
`for
`
`to reach
`
`the
`
`a jury
`
`result
`
`it has
`
`determined
`
`upon,
`
`and
`
`thus
`
`a valid
`
`question
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`does
`
`exist,
`
`the
`
`court may
`
`not
`
`conclude
`
`that
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`is as a matter
`
`of
`
`law not
`
`supported
`
`evidence."
`
`by the
`
`Id. at
`
`499.
`
`It
`
`is well-settled
`
`that
`
`"great
`
`deference
`
`is accorded
`
`to the
`
`fact-finding
`
`function
`
`of
`
`the jury,
`
`and
`
`determinations
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`credibility
`
`of witnesses
`
`are
`
`for
`
`the
`
`factfinders,
`
`who
`
`had
`
`the
`
`152892/2013 GARRETT, CLARA vs. TRANSIT AUTHORITY
`Motion No. 003
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`6
`
`of
`
`9
`
`7 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2018 11:44 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`: NEW YORK
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`09
`EILED
`03/30/2018
`NTSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`60
`
`: 5 O AM|
`
`INDEX NO. 152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
`152892/2013
`NO.
`INDEX
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`03/30/2018
`
`opportunity
`
`to see
`
`and
`
`hear
`
`the
`
`witnesses."
`
`Desposito
`
`v City
`
`of New York,
`
`55 AD3d
`
`659,
`
`866
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`248
`
`(2d
`
`Dept
`
`2008).
`
`A jury's
`
`resolution
`
`of
`
`disputed
`
`factual
`
`issues.
`
`as well
`
`as any
`
`inconsistencies
`
`in
`
`witnesses'
`
`testimony
`
`is also
`
`entitled
`
`to
`
`deference.
`
`Bykowsky
`
`1 Eskenazi,
`
`AD3d
`
`590
`
`(1st Dept
`
`2010),
`
`/v denied
`
`16 N.Y.3d
`
`701
`
`(201
`
`l).
`
`It
`
`is also
`
`the function
`
`of
`
`the jury
`
`whether
`
`a witness
`
`is credible
`
`and what
`
`weight
`
`ought
`
`to be given
`
`to the
`
`72
`
`to
`
`of
`
`determine
`
`testimony
`
`experts.
`
`Devito
`
`v Feliciano,
`
`84 AD3d
`
`645
`
`(1st Dept
`
`2011),
`
`citing
`
`Harding
`
`v Noble
`
`Taxi
`
`Corp.,
`
`182 AD2d
`
`365
`
`(1st Dept
`
`1992).
`
`Here,
`
`despite
`
`some
`
`inconsistencies
`
`in
`
`plaintiff's
`
`testimony,
`
`it
`
`is evident
`
`that
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`credited
`
`her
`
`testimony
`
`that,
`
`as she was
`
`descending
`
`a stairway
`
`leading
`
`to the Union
`
`Square
`
`subway
`
`station,
`
`she stepped
`
`on a cake-like
`
`substance
`
`with
`
`her
`
`right
`
`foot
`
`and
`
`then,
`
`when
`
`she
`
`tried
`
`to step
`
`with
`
`her
`
`left
`
`foot
`
`on the third
`
`to avoid
`
`failing,
`
`the worn
`
`of
`
`the third
`
`led her
`
`and
`
`fall
`
`down
`
`the
`
`stairs.
`
`step
`
`Indeed,
`
`nosing
`
`step
`
`to slip
`
`although
`
`defendant
`
`insists
`
`that
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`must
`
`be set
`
`aside
`
`because
`
`plaintiff
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`a "cake-like
`
`substance'
`
`on the
`
`first
`
`step
`
`contributed
`
`to her accident,
`
`the verdict
`
`sheet
`
`establishes
`
`the
`
`jurors'
`
`determination
`
`that
`
`defendant
`
`"fail[ed]
`
`to correct
`
`the unsafe
`
`condition"
`
`that
`
`existed
`
`"on
`
`the
`
`third
`
`step
`
`from
`
`the
`
`top",
`
`and
`
`that
`
`such
`
`failure
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`plaintiff's
`
`injuries.
`
`Doc.
`
`48.
`
`regardless
`
`of
`
`the fact
`
`Further,
`
`that Schwartzberg
`
`examined
`
`the stairway
`
`approximately
`
`two
`
`I
`
`years
`
`after
`
`the accident,
`
`he was
`
`still
`
`permitted
`
`to rely
`
`on a photograph,
`
`taken
`
`immediately
`
`or a few
`
`months
`
`after
`
`the
`
`incident
`
`and marked
`
`as an exhibit
`
`at
`
`trial,
`
`in rendering
`
`his
`
`opinion
`
`that
`
`the worn
`
`condition
`
`of
`
`the
`
`nosing
`
`of
`
`the
`
`steps
`
`had
`
`existed
`
`for
`
`several
`
`years.
`
`See Admiral
`
`his.
`
`Co.
`
`v Joy
`
`Contractors.
`
`Inc.,
`
`19 NY3d
`
`448
`
`(2012);
`
`Tafi·ate
`
`v Gucciardo,
`
`2014 NY Slip Op 30330(U)
`
`(Sup
`
`Ct
`
`New York
`
`County
`
`2014).
`
`152892/2013 GARRETT, CLARA vs. TRANSIT AUTHORITY
`MotionNo.
`003
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`7
`
`of
`
`9
`
`8 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2018 11:44 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`09:50
`: NEW YORK
`FILED
`60
`NO.
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`
`COUNTY
`
`CLERK
`
`03/30/2018
`.30
`
`AM)
`
`INDEX NO. 152892/2013
`
`152892/2013
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
`NO.
`INDEX
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`03/30/2018
`
`.
`
`.
`
`This
`
`Court
`
`cannot
`
`meaningfully
`
`analyze
`
`that
`
`branch
`
`of defendant's
`
`motion
`
`to set aside
`
`the
`
`damages
`
`verdict
`
`insofar
`
`as it did
`
`not
`
`append
`
`crucial
`
`portions
`
`of
`
`the
`
`transcript
`
`to its motion.
`
`See
`
`Gorbea
`
`v DeCohen,
`
`supra.
`
`The most
`
`glaring
`
`omission
`
`in this
`
`regard
`
`is defendant's
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`append
`
`to its motion
`
`the trial
`
`testimony
`
`of plaintiff's
`
`treating
`
`physician,
`
`Dr. Gabriel
`
`Dassa,
`
`which
`
`his opinions
`
`plaintiff
`
`the possible
`
`need·
`need
`
`would
`
`presumably
`
`contain
`
`regarding
`
`s prognosis,
`
`including
`
`for
`
`plaintiff
`
`to undergo
`
`surgery
`
`in the future.2
`future.
`
`I
`
`In any
`
`event,
`
`the
`
`sole
`
`case
`
`cited
`
`by defendant
`
`in connection
`
`with
`
`its excessive
`
`damages
`
`Claudio
`
`v City
`
`of New
`
`York,
`
`280
`
`AD2d
`
`403
`
`(1"
`
`Dept
`
`2001),
`
`would
`
`not
`
`persuade
`
`this
`
`Courttoreduce
`
`the verdict.
`
`Contrary
`
`to defendant's
`
`contention,
`
`this
`
`17 year-old
`
`decision
`
`is not
`
`a
`
`"recent
`
`appellate
`
`case."
`
`Doc.
`
`47, at par.
`
`22.
`
`Further,
`
`plaintiff
`
`in that
`
`case, who
`
`sustained
`
`a fracture
`
`for
`
`was
`
`of her nondominant
`
`wrist,
`
`an injury
`
`to her
`
`shoulder
`
`and ankle
`
`and was
`
`in a cast
`
`six weeks,
`
`awarded
`
`$17,500
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`and
`
`$6,000
`
`for
`
`future
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering.
`
`The
`
`Appellate
`
`Division,
`
`First
`
`Department
`
`directed
`
`a new trial
`
`on damages
`
`unless
`
`defendant
`
`stipulated
`
`to increase
`
`the awards
`
`for
`
`past
`
`and
`
`future
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`to $75,000
`
`and
`
`$40,000,
`
`respectively.
`
`Since
`
`plaintiff
`
`in Claudio
`
`received
`
`these
`
`awards
`
`for a fracture
`
`of her nondominant
`
`wrist
`
`almost
`
`20
`
`II
`!
`
`ago.
`
`that
`
`years
`
`this Court
`
`disagrees
`
`the
`
`awards
`
`of $40,000
`
`and
`
`$160,000
`
`for
`
`past
`
`and
`
`future
`
`pain
`
`and suffering,
`
`respectively,
`
`deviated
`
`from what
`
`can
`
`be considered
`
`reasonable
`
`compensation.
`
`Finally,
`
`plaintiff's
`
`purported
`
`cross motion
`
`to increase
`
`the
`
`damages
`
`award
`
`is procedurally
`
`deficient
`
`insofar
`
`as plaintiff
`
`s counsel
`
`failed
`
`to submit
`
`a notice
`
`of cross motion
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`CPLR
`
`2215.
`
`Even
`
`if a notice
`
`of
`
`cross motion
`
`had
`
`been
`
`filed,
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`would
`
`be unable
`
`to
`
`2 Plaintiff
`also notes that, although
`she appeared
`by a physician
`for a physical·examination
`designated
`by defendant,
`failed to produce
`defendant
`a
`received
`its examining
`as a witness
`at trial and, as a result,
`as a sanction
`physician
`missing witness
`See Pltf. Aff.
`instruction.
`charge
`In Opp., at par. 46.
`That defendant
`received
`a negative
`inference
`would
`further warrant
`its request
`the denial
`of
`for
`the reduction
`of
`the damages
`award.
`
`1.:
`
`152892/2013 GARRETT, CLARA vs. TRANSlT AUTHORITY
`Motion No. 003
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`I 8
`
`of9
`
`9 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2018 11:44 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`NEW YORK
`CLERK
`A$
`COUNTY
`03/30/2018
`FILED:
`NÝSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`60
`
`09:50
`
`INDEX NO. 152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
`15 2 8 92 / 2 0 13
`NO .
`INDEX
`
`RECEIVED
`
`NYSCEF:
`
`03/30/2018
`
`increase
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`given
`
`the
`
`aforementioned
`
`absence
`
`of
`
`all
`
`testimony
`
`regarding
`
`.plaintiff's
`plaintiff's
`
`damages.
`
`Therefore,
`
`in light
`
`of
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`it
`
`is hereby:
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the motion
`
`by defendant
`
`New York
`
`City
`
`Transit
`
`Authority
`
`to set aside
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`is denied;
`
`and
`
`it
`
`is further
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`this
`
`constitutes
`
`the decision
`
`and order
`
`of
`
`the
`
`court.
`
`I
`
`3/27/2018
`DATE
`
`KAT
`
`E. FREED,
`
`J.S.C.
`
`CHECK ONE:
`
`X
`
`APPLICATION:
`CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:
`
`CASE DISPOSED
`GRANTED
`SETTLE ORDER
`DO NOT POST
`
`X
`
`DENIED
`
`NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
`GRANTED (N PART
`SUSMIT ORDER
`FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT
`
`OTHER
`
`REFERENCE
`
`152892/2013 GARRETT, CLARA vs. TRANSIT AUTHOfÛTY
`Motion No. 003
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`9
`
`of
`
`9
`
`10 of 11
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2018 11:44 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 152892/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2018
`
`AFFIDAVIT
`
`OF SERVICE
`
`LISA
`
`to this
`
`action,
`
`CUOMO,
`am over
`
`being
`years
`the
`
`sworn,
`duly
`of eighteen
`
`deposes
`years
`
`says:
`and
`and
`reside
`
`I am not
`in Brooklyn,
`
`a party
`NY.
`
`That
`
`on
`
`the
`
`17™
`
`day
`
`of
`
`April,
`
`2018
`
`I
`
`served
`
`a true
`
`copy
`
`of
`
`the
`
`annexed:
`
`ORDER WITH
`
`NOTICE
`
`OF ENTRY
`
`By mailing
`in an official
`of New York,
`
`prepaid,
`State
`
`same
`
`in
`
`depository
`the
`upon
`
`a sealed
`of
`following:
`
`envelope
`the United
`
`by
`States
`
`regular
`Postal
`
`with
`
`mail
`Service
`
`postage
`within
`the
`
`Esq.
`Lawrence
`Heisler,
`for
`Attorneys
`Defendant
`Livingston
`Street
`NY 11201
`
`130
`
`Brooklyn,
`
`e:e~ ~
`CUOMO
`
`LISA
`
`Sworn
`Apr
`
`to bef
`17, 20
`
`e me
`
`Notary
`
`pub
`
`ic
`
`CHRISTINE
`Pubüc,
`
`CALIFANO
`State
`of New York
`
`Notary
`
`in Kings
`Qualitieo
`County
`Commission
`Expires
`November
`
`29, 20
`
`11 of 11
`
`