On May 29, 2013, Keonna Greenidge was struck by a slow moving car while walking across Morris Avenue in the Bronx. Ms. Greenidge, then 22 years old, sued the driver claiming she sustained significant injuries to her spine and knees.

After determining that both parties were at fault – defendant 65%, plaintiff 35% – the jury awarded plaintiff (a) pain and suffering damages in the sum of $250,000 ($125,000 past – 10 years, $125,000 future – 10 years) and (b) future medical expenses in the sum of $200,000.

Both partied appealed – plaintiff argued that the pain and suffering award was inadequate and that she was not at fault at all; the defendant argued that the future medical expenses award was excessive. In Greenidge v. Steele (1st Dept. 2024), the appellate court affirmed both the liability and damages verdicts.

Here are the injuries claimed by plaintiff:

  • herniated disc at C4-5 requiring spinal fusion surgery on 9/22/16
  • anterior cruciate ligament tears in both knees requiring arthroscopic surgeries on 1/15/14 and 6/11/14
  • herniated lumbar disc

The defense argued that the pain and suffering award was reasonable because the accident was so minor that plaintiff did not sustain any traumatic injury at all, she had pre-existing degenerative disc disease and her first medical treatment for her neck was not until five weeks after the accident. The defense stressed that plaintiff’s sole complaints at the emergency room on the date of the accident were a scrape on one knee and stomach cramping.

Plaintiff was 5 feet two inches tall, weighed 230 pounds and was nine months pregnant at the time. She was monitored in the ER for 10 hours by obstetrics and gynecology personnel (she had no treatment for her spine) and was advised to to be admitted for extended testing to make sure that her unborn baby had no issues; however, she left and walked out of the hospital against medical advice. Two weeks later, she delivered a health baby.

Inside Information:

  • In her summation, plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award pain and suffering damages in the sum of $3,900,000.
  • Plaintiff’s two treating surgeons testified on her behalf; the defense adduced testimony from medical experts in orthopedics, neurology, radiology and emergency medicine.
  • The future medical expenses award was based upon testimony from plaintiff’s spine surgeon that she will need future medical treatment including surgery on her back and he estimated the costs thereof.

On June 14, 2021, Joan Archer was walking across a street in a crosswalk in the Village of Valatie when she was struck by a left turning sport utility vehicle. Mrs. Archer, then 77 years old, sustained mortal injuries and died in surgery about two hours later. Her widow, Joseph Archer, sued the vehicle driver and owner who conceded liability. The matter then proceeded to a trial on damages only.

The Columbia County jury awarded damages as follows:

  • $150,000 for pre-impact teror
  • $350,000 for conscious pain and suffering (90 minutes – from the moment of impact until general anesthesia was administered in the hospital before brain surgery during which she died), and
  • $888,000 (10 years) for economic damages sustained by Mr. Archer

The defendants appealed arguing that the damages awards were speculative and exaggerated. In Archer v. Parlman (3rd Dept. 2025), the damages awards were all affirmed.

Here are the injury details:

  • skull fracture, subdural hematoma, cerebral contusions and intracranial hemorrhage
  • video showed Mrs. Archer turned her head in the direction of the oncoming vehicle and raised her hand in a defensive posture, thus establishing the claim for pre-impact terror
  • plaintiff’s expert neurologist opined that Mrs. Archer endured 90 minutes of conscious pain and suffering based upon ambulance and hospital records and the testimony of the driver (who was a certified EMT) and a state trooper indicating that she opened and closed her eyes, repositioned her extremities and tried to remove her cervical collar, tried to flip from her side to her back and squeezed the trooper’s hand in response to his questions
  • Mr. Archer testified that his wife had performed all of their household responsibilities (e.g., laundry, grocery shopping, cleaning and gardening) and an economist evaluated those services at $88,000 per year, based upon a life care plan

On February 21, 2010, Paul Chicoine was admitted to a hospital emergency room in Bethpage with complaints of dizziness and vomiting. He was examined by a triage nurse and a physician, diagnosed with vertigo, dehydration and sinusitis and discharged.

About a week later, Mr. Chicoine, then 47 years old, sustained a stroke. He sued the doctor and the hospital claiming that they failed to obtain a full patient history and failed to properly diagnose him with a transient ischemic attack.

The Nassau County jury credited the plaintiff’s allegations and found the defendants liable for his injuries. The jury awarded damages as follows:

  • $1,800,000 for pain and suffering ($700,000 past – nine years, $1,100,000 future – 22 years )
  • $1,057,771 for loss of earnings ($393,275 past – five and a half years, $664,496 future – 8.6 years)
  • $458,991 for loss of pension retirement (13 years beginning at age 65 years)
  • $350,000 for loss of spousal services ($200,000 past – nine years, $150,000 future – 22 years)

The defendants appealed arguing that they were not at all liable and, alternatively, that the pain and suffering and loss of services awards were excessive and that the loss of earnings award was not proved with reasonable certainty and was predicated on speculative economic testimony.

In Chicoine v. Mendola (2d Dept. 2024), the appellate court affirmed both the liability and damages verdicts.

Here are the injury details:

  • left side weakness with spasms and pain, significant coordination and balance deficits, severe burning to left side of face, unable to control left arm movement and residual problem with eyes (including rotary nystagmus – abnormal eye movement)
  • 10 day hospitalization followed by three and a half weeks inpatient rehabilitation and home therapy for seven months
  • returned to work as a court officer in November 2010 but unable to return to any work after July 2013

The defense argued that, except for the eight months from the stroke until plaintiff returned to work, the lost earnings award was not established with reasonable certainty noting that it was only plaintiff himself who testified to a complete inability to work and that when he decided to stop work in 2013 it was not upon the advice of any treating physician.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff told ambulance personnel that he’d experienced left-sided numbness and weakness and garbled speech before he called 911. They noted that in their pre-hospital care report but the defendants claimed plaintiff did not tell them about these symptoms, he did not exhibit them in the ER and they were unaware of these symptoms during their treatment of Mr. Chicoine.
  • In his summation, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $3,750,000 for past pain and suffering damages plus $1,250,000 for the future.
  • Before his stroke, plaintiff was left handed; afterwards, he taught himself to write with his right hand.

On April 10, 2016, Robert Liciaga was severely injured when a 10-foot-long railroad tie fell from an elevated subway line and struck his back while he was riding a bicycle along Broadway in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn. At the time and place of the accident, the New York City Transit Authority (the “TA”) was performing track replacement work on the elevated subway tracks.

Mr. Liciaga, then 23 years old, sued the TA claiming it was negligent in failing to secure the area below the tracks where debris was being dropped and that the tie should have been slowly lowered to the roadway. The TA argued that plaintiff should not have bicycled into the area which was obviously dangerous with cranes, barricades and safety cones. Plaintiff testified that a worker gave him permission to enter the construction zone.

The jury found in favor of plaintiff on the liability issues and then they awarded pain and suffering damages in the sum of $69,000,000 ($9,000,000 past – three years, $60,000,000 future – 48 years). They also awarded future medical expenses in the sum of $40,000,000 (48 years).

The trial judge declined to disturb the liability verdict but found that the pain and suffering damages awards were excessive and ordered reductions to $4,000,000 for the past and $12,000,000 for the future. The judge did not disturb the future medical expenses award or allow a so-called collateral source hearing by which defendant sought to reduce the amount of future medical expenses by amounts plaintiff is entitled to receive from sources such as insurance or government benefits.

In Liciaga v. New York City Transit Authority (2d Dept. 2024), the appellate court rejected the defense arguments as to liability and excessiveness of the damages awards but did find that the defense is entitled to a collateral source hearing to present evidence that the plaintiff, who was uninsured, would have his future medical expenses covered by private health insurance under the so-called Affordable Care Act.

Here are the injury details:

  • spinal fractures at T9-10 with severance of the spinal cord
  • extensive emergent spine surgery
  • hospitalized five days, inpatient rehabilitation three weeks, nursing home three months, then residence at Coler Specialty Hospital – a Medicaid facility
  • no motor activity or sensation below the T7 level leaving plaintiff permanently paraplegic, wheelchair bound, in pain and unable to attend to activities of daily living

Inside Information:

  • The defense offered no evidence whatsoever, including no expert testimony, during the damages trial.
  • The future medical expenses claim was based on plaintiff’s expert physiatrist (and an economist) who testified that the costs would be between $37,424,829 and $58,284,689. The largest item was for home care (with nurses and aides) or facility care.
  • The case settled for an undisclosed sum in April 2025.

On March 13, 2017, Carlos Fuentes, then 35 years old, was injured when the car he was driving was struck by a vehicle driven by an officer with the Nassau County Police Department. The car Mr. Fuentes was in flipped over three times; the other car burst into flames.

After a trial on liability, the jury found that the police officer was fully at fault and the jury then awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $1,025,000 ($425,000 past – four years, $600,000 future – 30 years). In Fuentes v. Ingram (2d Dept. 2025), the judgment has been affirmed.

Here are the injury details:

  • Left Knee – grade four chondromalacia requiring arthroscopic surgery
  • Hip – labral tear
  • Spine – herniated discs in neck and back

Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon was the sole medical witness to testify. He said that plaintiff’s knee cartilage had been significantly damaged to the point that bone was rubbing against bone and his surgery could not alleviate plaintiff’s symptoms. He opined that plaintiff’s injury is permanent, with restricted range of motion. Plaintiff’s other injuries did not require surgery but his surgeon testified that he has restricted ranges of motion in those areas as well and they too are permanent.

Plaintiff testified that his pain and restricted ranges of motion left him unable to resume his previously very active life that included a heavy labor job, several sports and helping out at home.

The jury awarded (and the appellate court affirmed) damages for spousal loss of services and society in the sum of $85,000 ($35,000 past, $50,000 future – 30 years).

Inside Information:

  • in his summation, plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award pain and suffering damages in the sum of $425,000 for the past and $375,000 for the future.
  • Plaintiff’s wife was employed as a paralegal with plaintiff’s law firm.
  • At the time of trial, plaintiff and his wife had been separated for about six months.
  • The judge instructed the jury that plaintiff’s life expectancy pursuant to government tables was 34.5 years; the jury instead chose 30 years for its future damages awards.

On March 27, 2015, Earl Lind was working for an electrical subcontractor at the World Trade Center vehicle security center new construction site. Mr. Lind, then 45 years old, was in the bucket of an articulating lift when he was injured after it slid down a ramp and crashed.

WTC Vehicle Center

In his ensuing lawsuit against the construction manager and premises owner, Lind was granted summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law Section 240(1) and the matter then proceeded to a trial on damages only. The Manhattan jury awarded plaintiff damages as follows:

  • Pain and Suffering – $460,000 (past only – seven years),
  • Lost Earnings – $230,000 (past only – seven years), and
  • Loss of Services – $0

Plaintiff appealed claiming that the damages awards were inadequate.

In Lind v. Tishman Construction Corp. (1st Dept. 2024), the appellate court affirmed the judgment entered as to damages for pain and suffering and lost earnings while increasing the loss of services award from zero to $40,000.

The central damages issue in this case was whether plaintiff sustained new and disabling injuries to his hips that he claimed required three surgeries, left him permanently disabled and out of work and caused his wife to become his caretaker.

Plaintiff conceded he had preexisting avascular necrosis (also known as osteonecrosis – the death of bone tissue due to lack of blood supply) in both hips but argued that he was still able to work hard at his job for decades without any complaints related to his hips.

The defense argued that plaintiff’s preexisting condition was the sole reason he required the three surgeries and that the accident was not the cause of his inability to return to work or his wife’s difficulties.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff underwent right hip labral tear surgery six months after his accident, right hip replacement surgery in 2016 and left hip replacement surgery in 2019.
  • Plaintiff did not ask for an award of future medical expenses.
  • In his summation, plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award $7,500,000 for pain and suffering damages, $4,200,000 for lost earnings and $3,300,000 for loss of services.

On March 29, 2004, Bethany Mongeau was a passenger in a taxi cab in Manhattan when it was rear-ended by another vehicle (also a taxi cab) and she was injured.

Ms. Mongeau, then 30 years old, sued both drivers claiming that she sustained cervical spine injuries and a significant loss of earnings. Her motion for summary judgment against both drivers was granted and a damages only trial then ensued in which the jury awarded:

  • $416,666 for pain and suffering ($350,000 past – 18 years, $66,666 future – 30 years), and
  • $990,000 for loss of earnings (all past – 18 years)

In Mongeau v. SR Taxi Corp. (1st Dept. 2025), the appellate court affirmed the judgment.

Here are the injury details:

  • Loss of Earnings – plaintiff had been a lawyer with a major patent law firm and claimed that her injuries forced her to retire in 2006 when she was earning $185,000 plus a bonus per year
  • Cervical Spine – plaintiff’s doctors testified that she had a tear around her cervical joints and a post-traumatic syrinx and the defendants’ doctors conceded she had limited range of motion; plaintiff underwent 18 months of physical therapy and at trial continued to complain of pain and disabilities while still treating for her injuries

The defendants argued that the loss of earnings award was excessive and against the weight of the credible evidence. They claimed that plaintiff failed to mitigate her earnings loss by seeking alternative employment pointing to her own orthopedic surgeon’s testimony that plaintiff had the ability to be gainfully employed despite being partially disabled.

The appellate court rejected the defense argument noting that the jury was entitled to credit or discredit the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses regarding her physical condition and ability to return to work. The court also noted that the $990,000 award was less than half of the amount claimed for past loss of earnings and that nothing at all was awarded for the future.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff did not seek medical attention for her injuries until the next day and she did not commence her lawsuit until almost three years later (two days before the statute of limitations would have expired).
  • In his closing statement, plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award $5,200,000 for pain and suffering and $8,700,000 for loss of earnings.

On June 14, 2019, Rizwan Sharif injured his right foot at a construction site in Queens when he slipped and fell from an eight foot tall chain link fence he’d been instructed to measure. Mr. Sharif, then 34 years old, sued the property owner claiming violations of the Labor Law (he wasn’t provided a ladder) and general negligence.

The defendant failed to defend the lawsuit and plaintiff was granted a default judgment. Thereafter, on 11/3/21, an inquest on damages was held following which the judge awarded pain and suffering damages in the sum of $100,000.

Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the damages award was inadequate. In Sharif v. Pritam Properties, Inc. (2d Dept. 2024), the appellate court increased the award to $400,000.

The appellate court did not discuss the injuries sustained. Here are the injury details:

  • Lisfranc Injury – fractures of three metatarsals, cuneiform and cuboid in right foot
  • Casted for one month
  • Open Reduction Internal Fixation surgery a month after the accident
  • Hardware removal surgery two years later

The inquest was held less than six weeks after the hardware removal surgery at which time plaintiff testified that he was in great pain and still unable to return to work. His pain management physician was the only other witness; he testified that the accident also caused a herniated disc in plaintiff’s back that had required three epidural steroid injections, was still causing plaintiff pain and difficulties and would require further treatment.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff’s attorney asked the inquest judge to award a total of $6,400,000 ($3,500,000 for pain and suffering and the balance for lost wages and medical expenses).
  • In his decision, the inquest judge did not analyze plaintiff’s injuries or explain whether the damages were for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering or economic claims.
  • In the judgment ultimately entered on the $400,000 award, plaintiff was awarded an additional $150,000 for interest.

In 2013, Mario Mujica, then 29 years old, was erroneously released prematurely from prison after serving all but a week of a negotiated plea agreement to serve six months for a drug offense. On October 28, 2013, he voluntarily surrendered himself and was taken to the Nassau County Correctional Facility.

After he’d been processed on the day of his surrender, Mujica and a corrections officer got into a verbal altercation which promptly escalated into a physical altercation with three officers that left Mujica injured.

Mujica sued Nassau County and the officers for battery claiming that their use of force was unlawful; the officers claimed that their use of force was in response to plaintiff’s argumentative and combative behavior.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him pain and suffering damages in the sum of $310,000 ($150,000 past – 4.5 years, $160,000 future – eight years). In Mujica v. Nassau County Correctional Facility (2d Dept. 2024), the appellate court affirmed both the liability and the damages verdicts.

Here are the injury details:

  • Fractured Rib
  • Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and left wrist De Quervain’s tenosynovitis requiring release surgeries on both wrists and a tendon release surgery
  • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder “(“PTSD”)

There was extensive medical testimony on both sides. Two psychiatrists and a hand surgeon testified for the plaintiff; a psychiatrist and a neurologist testified for the defense.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff’s post-trial motion seeking an increase in the damages awards was denied.
  • The defense neurologist opined that plaintiff did not sustain PTSD adding: “He insulted an officer, the officer interacted back with him. He found himself on he floor. The rest is what followed. It’s not like he was so traumatized that it would have caused it.”

On December 18, 2014, Audrey Buckham was injured in her Brooklyn apartment when the ceiling in her bathroom collapsed on her while she was in the shower striking her and knocking her to the floor.

Ms. Buckham, then 52 years old, sued her landlord claiming that the defendant knew the bathroom ceiling had been leaking for years but the leak was never repaired and it caused the ceiling collapse. The jury agreed and assessed full liability against the defendant.

In a separate damages trial a month after the liability verdict, a new jury awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $1,350,000 ($600,000 past – 4.5 years, $750,000 future – 25 years).

In Buckham, v. 322 Equity, LLC (2d Dept. 2024), the appellate court affirmed both the liability and damages verdicts.

Plaintiff claimed she sustained injuries to both shoulders, her back and her right knee, each requiring surgery. Here are the injury details:

  • Right Shoulder – rotator cuff tear requiring arthroscopic surgery on 6/5/15
  • Left Shoulder – impingement requiring arthroscopic surgery on 7/29/16
  • Lumbar Spine – spondylolisthesis with injured disk requiring facetectomy decompression and discectomy with fusion with placement of intervertebral body cage at L5-S1 on 4/19/17
  • Right Knee – meniscal tear requiring arthroscopic surgery on 9/8/17

The defendant argued that the damages awards were excessive because (a) plaintiff admitted her back surgery improved her condition and (b) the conditions requiring surgery to plaintiff’s shoulders and knees were not related to the accident.

Plaintiff was also awarded damages in the sum of $580,000 for her past and future loss of earnings. She’d been a home health aide at the time of the accident and claimed she was unable to return to any meaningful employment as a result of her injuries. Her testimony and W-2s established that her actual loss of earnings was less than the jury award so the appellate court reduced the award by $15,000.