Nivar v. Sadler
1:13-cv-07141
S.D.N.Y.Jul 1, 2016Background
- On Oct. 22, 2012, plaintiff Nivar collided with defendants’ tractor-trailer and sustained a fractured shoulder; he subsequently underwent two surgeries (shoulder surgery and a cervical discectomy and fusion) and ongoing pain.
- Jury trial (six days) found defendants negligent and awarded $400,000 total: $30,000 past pain and suffering, $100,000 future pain and suffering, and $270,000 for lost wages and future medical expenses.
- Jury specifically found a shoulder fracture and several categories of injury (permanent limitation of a body member; significant limitation of a body function; a non-permanent injury that prevented performance of usual activities for ≥90 days).
- Defendants pointed to plaintiff’s age, prior physical labor, preexisting arthritis, and prior shoulder dislocation as possible contributors to his condition.
- Plaintiff moved under New York law (N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5501(c)) for a new trial or increased damages, arguing the pain-and-suffering award materially deviated from reasonable compensation.
- The court reviewed comparable New York cases and concluded the pain-and-suffering award was materially inadequate; it ordered additur (new trial on damages unless defendants stipulate to increased amounts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury's pain-and-suffering award materially deviates from reasonable compensation under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5501(c) | Nivar: award ($30k past, $100k future) is too low given surgeries, permanent degenerative changes, and ongoing pain | Defendants: jury could reasonably discount awards due to preexisting conditions, age, work history | Held: Court found the award materially inadequate compared to comparable NY cases and ordered additur unless defendants accept increased awards |
| Appropriate remedy for inadequate award (new trial vs. additur) | Nivar: seeks new trial on damages | Defendants: oppose increasing award; rely on jury's factfinding and evidence supporting apportionment | Held: Court conditions new trial on defendants’ refusal to stipulate to additur ($60,000 past; $200,000 future), yielding $530,000 total with other awards included |
| Standard of review for C.P.L.R. § 5501(c) evaluation | Nivar: court should compare record to comparable NY awards and may weigh evidence | Defendants: emphasize deference to jury and permissible consideration of preexisting conditions | Held: Court applied § 5501(c) test—review evidence and compare to similar NY cases—noted deference but applied closer review than federal "shock the conscience" test |
| Whether counsel may suggest specific dollar amounts to the jury at trial | Nivar: argues trial court erred in precluding suggestions of specific figures | Defendants: support court's discretion to prohibit specific targets | Held: Court affirmed trial-court discretion to preclude target figures and found no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1996) (New York § 5501(c) materially-deviates standard governs federal diversity courts and requires closer review than common-law shock test)
- Presley v. United States Postal Serv., 317 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003) (district court should review trial evidence and compare award to similar NY cases under § 5501(c))
- DLC Mgmt. Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 163 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 1998) (trial judge may weigh evidence and grant new trial when verdict is against weight of evidence)
- Song v. Ives Labs., 957 F.2d 1041 (2d Cir. 1992) (new trial warranted when jury reaches seriously erroneous result or verdict is miscarriage of justice)
- Consorti v. Armstrong World Indus., 72 F.3d 1003 (2d Cir. 1995) (specifying target monetary amounts to jury is disfavored)
- Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898 (2d Cir. 1997) (trial court has discretion to prohibit counsel from mentioning specific damage figures to jury)