throbber
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:06 PM
`FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 11.132017 03:06 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 150106/2012
`INDEX NO~ 150106/2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RaCaIVaD vYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`
`\
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF RICHMOND
`...............................................................X
`
`MALVINA VITENKO, as admin. of the Estate
`of BOHDAN VITENKO, and MALVINA
`VITENKO, indiv.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY
`DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
`AND JON DOE LIFEGUARDS A-F
`
`_______________________________________________________________X
`
`Defendants.
`
`The following papers were marked fully submitted:
`
`DCM 6
`Philip G. Minardo, J.S.C.
`
`Index No.: 150106/2012
`POST—TRIAL DECISION
`AND ORDER
`
`Papers
`
`Numbered
`
`Notice of Motion of Defendant with supporting Papers and Exhibits
`(dated August 31, 2017) ..........................................................................
`
`Affirmation in Opposition of Plaintiff
`(dated September 21, 2017) ........................................................................
`
`l
`
`2
`
`Reply Affirmation of Defendant
`(dated September 27, 2017) .......................................................................... 3
`
`________._______d________—_—————————————-
`
`Defendant City of New York moves for an order (1) staying the entry of judgment until
`
`sixty (60) days after the decision on all post-trial motions; (2) dismissing the complaint alleging
`
`that plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case of negligence; (3) setting aside the jury verdict as
`
`contrary to the weight of the evidence; (4) reapportioning liability to accord with the evidence
`
`presented at trial, or order a new trial on the apportionment of liability; or (5) granting a new trial
`
`
`
`1 of 6
`
`

`

`- v
`FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:06 PM
`I:llni!'I.1!! I:;§°h‘|°'ll§lImm2017 03 06 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`'_'
`INDEX NO. 150106/2012
`
`INDLX NO. 150106/2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RaCaIVaD VYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`
`on the issue of damages.
`
`In the matter herein, plaintiff brought this personal injury suit on behalf of her deceased
`
`son, Bohdan Vitenko, for pain and suffering and wrongful death plus derivative claims. On July
`
`13, 2011, at approximately 8:30 am, Bohdan, along with three friends, arrived at the New York
`
`City Parks department Lyons Pool for the lap swimming session. At some point toward the end
`
`of his swim workout, Bohdan and his friend, Jonathan Proce held their breath underwater for a
`
`period oftime and apparently experienced a condition called “shallow water blackout.” When this
`
`condition occurs, otherwise healthy and fit swimmers will pass out while holding their breath
`
`underwater, then start breathing and drown Without any sign of distress.
`
`None of the witnesses at the scene testified that Bohdan or Jonathan showed signs of
`
`distress. Bohdan died at the scene. Jonathan was transported to Richmond University Medical
`
`Center and was later pronounced dead.
`
`Plaintiff alleged that Bohdan’s death was wrongful as a result ofthe defendant City ofNew
`
`York’s negligence in that the defendant failed to provide training to their lifeguards with regard to
`
`shallow water blackout, failed to assign the adequate number of lifeguards to the lap swimming
`
`session, and the lifeguards on the date of the accident were negligent in their duties. After the
`
`liability trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff.
`
`On the issue of damages, plaintiff and her husband testified when not at school, Bohdan
`
`was primarily a full-time student at John Jay College and his intent was to enter law enforcement.
`
`Plaintifftestified that her husband, Oleg Vitenko, owned a wood-working business where Bohdan
`
`would work. Bohdan did not file tax returns as a result of his employment in the family business,
`
`nor did he otherwise contribute to the household expenses. Plaintifftestified that she did not expect
`
`
`
`2 of 6
`
`

`

`Wzon 03:06 PM 7
`INDEX NO~ ”0106/2012
`
`
`INDEX NO. 150106/2012
`FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:06 PM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`44
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`RaCaIVaD VYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`
`that Bohdan would support his parents financially.
`
`Oleg Vitenko testified that Bohdan Vitenko was his stepson and was listed as a dependent
`
`on the family’s tax returns. He testified that Bohdan did help out with the business, and that there
`
`was a financial loss due to Bohdan’s departure. He explained that after Bohdan’s passing, the
`
`business loss was so great that Mrs. Vitenko sought employment outside the home. The family’s
`
`tax returns were admitted into evidence in support.
`
`After the damages trial, the jury awarded plaintiff:
`
`$440,000 for past monetary loss up to and including the date of the verdict;
`$1,050,000 for future pecuniary loss over a fifteen-year time span; and
`$40,000 for funeral and burial expenses.
`
`Defendant challenges the liability and damages verdict as noted supra. This court reserved
`
`decision at the close of the damages trial.
`
`CPLR Rule 4404(a) requires that:
`
`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 of
`action or separable issue where the verdict is contrary to the weight ofthe evidence,
`in the interest ofjustice or where the jury cannot agree after being kept together for
`as long as is deemed reasonable by the court.
`
`The interests ofjustice require that a new trial only be ordered if substantial justice has not
`
`been done. Schafrann v. N.V. Famka, Inc, 14 A.D.3d 363, 787 N.Y.S.2d 315 (1 Dept. 2005);
`
`Gomez v. Park Donuts, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 266, 671 N.Y.S.2d 103 (2 Dept. 1998); Pitts v. Columbus
`
`McKinnon Corp., 75 A.D.2d 1002, 429 N.Y.S.2d 124 (4 Dept. 1980); Delagi v. Delagi, 34 A.D.2d
`
`1005, 313 N.Y.S.2d 265 (2 Dept. 1970). To set aside a verdict, this court must conclude that there
`
`
`
`3 of 6
`
`

`

` FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 11m2017 03:06 PM BX 130. 150106/2012
`
`INDEX NO. 150106/2012
`FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:06 PM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`RaCaIVaD NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`
`is “simply 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 at trial.” Cohen v.
`
`Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145 (1978); see also Roman
`
`v. 1. Gold Corp., 35 A.D.3d 833, 834, 826 N.Y.S.2d 902 (2 Dept. 2006); Robinson v. City ofNew
`
`York, 300 A.D.2d 384, 751 N.Y.S.2d 533 (2 Dept. 2002); Firmes v. Chase Manhattan Automotive
`
`Finance Corp, 50 A.D.3d 18, 852 N.Y.S.2d 148 (2 Dept. 2008).
`
`This Court is quite resistant to disrupting the verdict of any jury. The function of the jury
`
`as fact-finder is sacrosanct and should be disturbed only in rare instances. However, this is one of
`
`those instances. The issue of liability was determined and based upon proper evidence. The
`
`liability motions were decided by this Court at the close the liability trial and will not be disturbed.
`
`On the other hand, the damages award was not as clear.
`
`The branch of defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the
`
`jury verdict as to damages for past monetary and future pecuniary loss must be granted as “such
`
`damages, to the extent indicated, deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation
`
`under the circumstances of this case.” Beck v. Northside Medical, 46 A.D.3d 499, 846 N.Y.S.2d
`
`662, 2007 NY. Slip Op. 09547 (2d dept. 2007); see CPLR 5501 [c]; Biejanov v. Guttman, 34
`
`A.D.3d 710, 826 N.Y.S.2d 111(2d dept. 2007); cf. Araujo v. Marion Mixers, 289 A.D.2d 428, 735
`
`N.Y.S.2d 402 (2d Dept. 2001); Charles v. Day, 289 A.D.2d 190, 733 N.Y.S.2d 690 (2d Dept.
`
`2001) (finding a new trial warranted where the infant plaintiff who suffered from Erb’s palsy was
`
`able to participate in his gym classes, and perform normal tasks, therefore indicating that the award
`
`for past and future pain and suffering was excessive in light of the evidence).
`
`
`
`4 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:06 PM
`FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 11m2017 03:06 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`
`INDEX NO. 150106/2012
`INDEX NO~ 150106/2012
`
`
`
`
`
`RaCaIVaD uYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`
`Plaintiff presented scant evidence of the decedent’s contribution to the household and the
`
`possibility of any future contribution. This court finds that the jury's determination that the
`
`plaintiff would have contributed to the household for fifteen (15) years is against the weight of the
`
`evidence. The evidence relating to the plaintiffs current employment, education, employment
`
`prospects and plans, and other evidence, was simply insufficient, to justify the jury's verdict with
`
`respect to the monetary loss. Plaintiff was a young college student who aspired to enter law
`
`enforcement. He was not contributing to the household in a manner which would support the
`
`decision of this jury.
`
`This Court therefore modifies the judgment affirmatively exercising its discretion as
`
`detailed infra. See Khulaqi v. Sea-Land Services, Inc. , 185 A.D.2d 973587 N.Y.S.2d 412 (2d Dept.
`
`1992); see, CPLR 4404[a]; Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 498—499, 410 N.Y.S.2d
`
`282, 382 N.E.2d 1145; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 132—133, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184.
`
`This decision is not intended to state that the decedent’s life did not have value. As a young
`
`man with so many possibilities and important goals ahead of him, his life was invaluable to his
`
`family and those whose lives he had impacted and would impact in the future. Unfortunately, the
`
`letter of the law cannot measure that type of loss appropriately.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED, that the motion of plaintiff to set aside the jury verdict is granted to the
`
`extent that the damages are reduced as follows:
`
`Past monetary loss is reduced to $308,000;
`Future pecuniary loss is reduced to $210,000 for a duration of three years;
`Funeral expenses remain $40,000;
`
`
`
`5 of 6
`
`

`

`
` FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 11m2017 03:06 PM INDEX NO~ 1501
`INDEX NO. 150106/2012
`FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:06 PM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`RaCaIVaD VYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`
`And it is further
`
`ORDERED, that any remaining requests are denied as the defendant’s contentions do not
`
`otherwise warrant a new trial.
`
`E N T E
`
`Mygméer 4, 10/7
`
`Hon. Philip G. Minardo, J.S.C
`
`
`
`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