On January 17, 2017, Carly Schollmeier tripped and fell while walking down a staircase at the Woodside Long island Railroad station in Queens.

In her ensuing lawsuit, Ms. Schollmeier, then 25 years old, claimed that the step on which she tripped was broken or corroded. The jury found that LIRR was negligent with respect to its failure to maintain the staircase.

The matter then proceeded to the issue of damages upon which the same jury awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $200,000 (all past – six years).

The defendants appealed arguing that the liability verdict should be reversed and, alternatively, that the damage verdict was excessive. In Schollmeier v. Metropolitan Transit Authority (2d Dept. 2025), the appellate court upheld the liability verdict and reduced the pain and suffering award to $100,000.

As a result of her fall, plaintiff sustained a non-surgical avulsion fracture of her ring finger.

Plaintiff was given a splint at the hospital the next day which she wore for about a month upon which she underwent a course of occupational therapy. Her treating doctor last examined her about five months after the accident noting that the fracture had by then fully healed.

On September 16, 2017, Carol Lewis was driving his car on Bell Avenue in the Bronx when a car unexpectedly crashed into his vehicle, causing him to collide with a parked car. Mr. Lewis, then 62 years old, sued the other driver (and owner) claiming he sustained significant shoulder and spinal injuries in the crash.

The jury determined that the crash was caused by the other driver and awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $1,000,000 ($600,000 past – six years, $400,000 future – 14.6 years). On appeal in Lewis v. Ganesh (1st Dept. 2025), the court affirmed the judgment as to both liability and damages.

Here are the injury details:

  • rotator cuff tears in both shoulders, each requiring arthroscopic surgery to repair
  • herniated cervical discs at C5-6 and C6-7 requiring two facet nerve block injections and bulging discs at L4-S1

Plaintiff claimed that he remains in pain in his shoulders and spine, his arms are stiff, they shake sometimes, and he is unable to lift them above his head like he used to. Furthermore, he cannot do things around the house such as fixing things, lifting or painting. His treating orthopedic surgeon testified that all of plaintiff’s injuries were caused from the accident trauma, he has significant range motion deficits, a poor prognosis and his conditions are permanent.

The defendants argued that their medical experts (an orthopedist and a radiologist) demonstrated that none of plaintiff’s injuries were related to the accident:

  • as to the shoulders, each had the same arthritic conditions and neither had any evidence of trauma
  • as to the spine, plaintiff merely had pre-existing degeneration and no traumatic injury

Inside Information:

  • In his summation, plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award the exact pain and suffering amounts that they then awarded.
  • Based upon estimated future medical costs testified to by plaintiff’s surgeon (including future spinal fusion surgeries), plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award $290,000. Their $300,000 award for future medical expenses was affirmed by the appellate court.
  • After the verdict was rendered, plaintiff sued defendants’ insurance company alleging it acted in bad faith by refusing to offer its $100,000 policy limits to settle the case before trial. That lawsuit is in the discovery phase.

On May 23, 2015, Paula Rendon tripped and fell on the sidewalk in front of the White Castle restaurant on Myrtle Avenue in Brooklyn.

Ms. Rendon, then 41 years old, sued both the premises owner and the tenant claiming that she fell and sustained ankle injuries because the sidewalk was uneven, cracked and unlevel. The jury agreed and found both defendants liable.

In the ensuing damages trial, plaintiff was awarded pain and suffering damages in the sum of $2,400,000 ($600,000 past – six and a half years, $1,800,000 future – 30 years).

Defendants appealed arguing that (a) the liability verdict should be reversed and (b) the damages award was excessive. In Rendon v. White Castle System, Inc. (2d Dept. 2025), the appellate court agreed with the defense and ordered a new trial on both liability and damages with the caveat that if the defendants are found liable in the new trial then the pain and suffering damages award should be reduced to $750,000 ($350,000 past, $400,000 future).

Here are the injury details:

  • Ambulance to hospital, complaining of ankle pain; x-rays negative, diagnosed with sprain
  • Home in pain for two weeks, then returned to work as house cleaner
  • Next medical treatment four months after fall; orthopedist diagnosed ligament and tendon tears in ankle which required arthroscopic surgery to repair
  • Post-traumatic arthritis, continuing pain
  • Needs ankle bracing procedure and in 10 years may need total ankle replacement surgery

The defense medical expert testified that plaintiff sustained a minor sprain that healed well, surgery had not been needed and plaintiff had no residual or permanent injuries.

Inside Information:

  • Defense counsel urged the appellate court to reduce the pain and suffering award to no more than $217,500.

On June 14, 2014, Geraldine Pace, a 71 year old retired teacher, fell in a parking lot and suffered a comminuted fracture of her left hip that required open reduction internal fixation surgery the next day with the insertion of a rod and screws into her femur.

The surgery was performed correctly and, four days later, she was discharged from the hospital to a rehabilitation center in Syracuse. Her surgeon’s discharge instructions stated that Mrs. Pace should be on “weightbearing as tolerated with walker assistance.”

Four weeks after her surgery, Mrs. Pace ended up needing a second surgery – total hip replacement – because the rod inserted in the first surgery had migrated through the top of the femur and the nail eroded with protrusion into her acetabulum.

In her ensuing medical malpractice lawsuit, Mrs. Pace claimed that the second surgery was needed, and terribly adverse consequences followed, because the physiatrist at the rehabilitation center put her through an intense and acute form of rehabilitation contrary to both the instructions of the first surgeon and the appropriate standards of care.

The Onondaga County jury agreed that the physiatrist was negligent in his professional care and treatment of Mrs. Pace (who died from unrelated causes before trial) and awarded pain and suffering damages in the sum of $5,000,000 (all past – six and a half years).

The trial judge agreed with the defense that the award was excessive and ordered a reduction to $1,250,000. Both sides appealed. In Pace v. Crouse Health Hospital, Inc. (4th Dept. 2025), the appellate court affirmed both the liability finding and the trial judge’s reduction.

Here are the injury details:

  • Total hip replacement emergent surgery (that would not have been needed but for the improperly aggressive rehabilitation activities after the first surgery)
  • Constant pain, permanent limp, severe loss of independence and mobility, loss of active lifestyle and need for constant pain medication

Inside Information:

  • In his closing statement, plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award $15,000,000 for pain and suffering damages.
  • Mr. Pace was awarded loss of consortium damages in the sum of $2,000,000 but the trial judge reduced that award to $250,000.
  • Plaintiff did not stipulate to the trial judge’s reductions so a new trial was held before the appellate decision was rendered. The jury awards in the new trial were $1,200,000 for pain and suffering plus $350,000 for loss of consortium.

On August 12, 2016, Paata Usoiani and Vitalii Kasoev were passengers in a parked car on Brighton Beach Avenue in Brooklyn when a truck owned by a moving company attempted to park and backed into the car.

Brighton Beach Avenue

Both Mr. Usoiani, then 31 years old and Mr. Kasoev, then 34 years old, claimed that they were injured in the crash. They sued the truck owner and driver and were granted summary judgment as to liability. A damages only trial followed.

The Kings County jury awarded plaintiffs pain and suffering damages as follows:

  • Usoiani – $2,270,000 ($250,000 past – five years, $2,020,000 future – 41 years)
  • Kasoev – $2,400,000 ($250,000 past – five years, $2,150,000 future -38 years)

Defendants argued that the awards were excessive but the trial judge declined to disturb them. On appeal, though, in Usoiani v. Dumbo Moving & Storage, Inc. (2d Dept. 2025), the appellate court reduced the total pain and suffering awards to $1,750,000 for each plaintiff.

Here are the injury details:

  • Usoiani – herniated disc at C3-4 requiring discectomy and fusion surgery and torn meniscus in knee requiring arthroscopic surgery
  • Kasoev – herniated disc at L5-S1 requiring discectomy and torn meniscus in knee

Defendants’ main argument was that neither plaintiff met any of the so-called serious injury requirements under CPLR 5102 that apply to motor vehicle accidents that would permit any pain and suffering award at all. After the jury disagreed and found that plaintiffs each sustained injuries that met some of the requirements, the defense argued that there could be no recovery for future pain and suffering because the jury found that neither plaintiff sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member. Both the trial judge and the appellate court rejected that argument.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiffs refused medical attention at the scene; they took a taxi to the local hospital about 12 hours later where they were treated and released.
  • The appellate court also affirmed awards for future medical expenses – $150,000 for Usoiani and $50,000 for Kasoev – as they were supported by competent evidence (the testimony of plaintiffs’ spinal surgeon as to the necessity and cost of future revision surgeries).
  • In his summation, plaintiffs’ attorney asked the jury to award each of the plaintiffs $13,000,000 for their pain and suffering damages.

On June 16, 2021, Elizabeth Taveras, then 47 years old, was walking on a sidewalk in the Bronx when she tripped and fell sustaining injuries to her hand.

Uneven Siedwalk

In her ensuing lawsuit against the owner and tenant of the building abutting the sidewalk, defendants failed to answer the complaint, Ms. Tavarez was granted a default judgment and an inquest on damages was held.

After the inquest, the judge awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $4,500.

Plaintiff appealed arguing that the award was inadequate. The appellate court agreed. In Tavarez v. 920 East 173rd Street Realty LLC (1st Dept. 2025), the pain and suffering award was increased to $50,000.

Here are the injury details:

  • Fractures of 4th and 5th metacarpal bones
  • Casted one month; physical therapy for 18 months
  • Continuing limitations of range of motion

Plaintiff claimed that the accident caused a claw deformity that severely limited use of her hand and left her in pain and needing assistance in activities of daily living such as cooking and getting dressed. The appellate court, though, agreed with the inquest judge that there were other conditions affecting plaintiff’s hand, including nerve conditions, that were not causally related to the accident.

At 2 a.m. on January 20, 2013, Martin Eaton went to Kellogg’s Diner in Brooklyn. When the bill for his meal arrived, Mr. Eaton proffered his credit card but was advised that payment was required by cash. He was directed to an ATM in the foyer of the diner. Finding the three dollar ATM fee too much relative to his $14.30 bill, he decided to go to the grocery store across the street to use their ATM. As he was walking across the street, the diner’s security guard told him he had to return to the diner to pay his bill. When he re-entered the diner, the security guard grabbed him, knocked him to the floor and choked him.

Mr. Eaton, then 41 years old, claimed that he was injured and sued the diner’s owners and managers alleging that the security guard was their employee and that they are liable for his actions which constituted unlawful battery. The jury agreed and then awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $550,000 ($275,000 past – seven years, $275,000 future – seven years).

In Eaton v. Fiotis (2d Dept. 2025), the appellate court found that the damages award was not excessive; however, the court remitted the case for a new trial on the issue of liability because the trial judge erred in denying the defendants’ request to ask the jury to determine whether the security guard was acting within the scope of his employment when he attacked plaintiff.

Here are the injury details:

  • Bruises and pain in lower back, a knee, a shoulder and both wrists for which plaintiff underwent one chiropractic session before the injuries resolved in about five weeks
  • Post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Plaintiff claimed that the incident was extremely humiliating and fearful and that it changed his view of the world and has left him suffering with manifestations including anxiety, anger, difficulty sleeping and nervousness.

Plaintiff did not undergo any treatment for his emotional injuries until five years after the incident when he started weekly sessions with a licensed clinical social worker who testified on his behalf. The treatment continued as of the trial date.

Inside Information:

  • After plaintiff was battered by the security guard, a plainclothes officer took him to the precinct and he was jailed overnight. A few months later, the charges were dropped.
  • Plaintiff asserted claims for battery, negligent hiring, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and violation of civil rights. Only the battery claim was allowed to proceed to a verdict.
  • A defense psychiatrist examined plaintiff before trial and diagnosed him with mild, non-permanent PTSD that was “overdue” to go away.

On October 4, 2014, Elizabeth Enriquez, then 63 years old, was injured when she tripped and fell walking down stairs at the Queens Borough Plaza subway station. She sued the city’s transit authority claiming that she fell because of a missing piece of hardware on the final step. The jury found that that the defendant was 100% liable for the accident.

In the ensuing damages only trial, the jury awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $150,000 (all past – five years and four months). Plaintiff argued that the award was inadequate; however, the trial judge declined to disturb the award.

In Enriquez v. Metropolitan Transit Authority (2d Dept. 2025), the appellate court found that the award was inadequate and:

  • (a) ordered an increase of the past pain and suffering award from $150,000 to $300,000;
  • (b) rejected plaintiff’s argument that the jury erred in awarding nothing at all for future pain and suffering damages.

Here are the injury details:

  • trimalleolar ankle fracture requiring three surgeries – first an emergent open reduction internal fixation surgery with plates and screws inserted
  • second surgery, on 3/13/15, to remove some of the painful hardware
  • third surgery, on 4/3/17, to remove the remaining painful hardware
  • admitted to hospital for a few days for each surgery and to rehabilitation facilities for 70 days until finally discharged to home on 12/11/14
  • visiting nurse home care for a year and a half (105 in-home treatments)
  • plaintiff testified that she has continuing constant severe stiffness and pain making it difficult to walk without assistance and requiring a home health aide for four hours a day, five days a week

Defendants opposed any increase in the jury’s awards in large part because the plaintiff did not call a physician to testify about her injuries and, especially, her future prognosis. Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that her treating surgeon notified her, in the middle of the trial, that he would not be able to testify because he’d be out of the country. The judge gave the jury a missing witness charge and the plaintiff supported her claim for future pain and suffering damages with extensive medical records in evidence encompassing her surgeries and medical treatment thereafter.

Inside Information:

  • In summations, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $750,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for the future. Defense counsel stated that the only evidence on damages was plaintiff’s “self-serving testimony” and he asked the jury for “no award of any damages.”
  • There was no claim for future medical expenses or loss of earnings (plaintiff was a retired school crossing guard).
  • During the liability trial, defendants offered to settle for $247,500. Plaintiff rejected the offer.

On July 20, 2012, Willan Aguilar was employed by a subcontractor as a laborer performing demolition work at a construction site in Brooklyn when he fell from a metal beam 15 feet onto the ground below. Mr. Aguilar, then 34 years old, sued the owner and general contractor under the Labor Law and was granted summary judgment as to liability. The case then proceeded to a trial on damages only.

The Kings County jury awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $4,000,000 ($1,500,000 past – seven years, $2,500,000 future – 35 years). The trial judge agreed with the defendants that the awards were excessive and ordered a reduction to $1,800,000.

In Aguilar v. Graham Terrace, LLC (2d Dept. 2025), the appellate court reversed the trial judge’s order and the awards were reinstated.

Here are the main injury details:

  • left femur fracture requiring open reduction internal fixation surgery (and a later surgery to remove one of the implanted screws)
  • herniated disc at L4-5 requiring laminectomy
  • torn meniscus in right knee requiring arthroscopic surgery

Plaintiff testified that he continues to have intractable pain requiring narcotic medication, is unable to return to work, walks with a limp and is severely limited as to many activities of daily living. His treating orthopedic surgeon testified that plaintiff’s right knee surgery was needed because of plaintiff’s compensating for the injuries to his left leg. His spinal surgeon and pain management physician testified as to the need for his back surgery and his future pain and medical needs, including the likelihood that he will need lumbar fusion surgery.

The defense experts testified that plaintiff made an excellent recovery from his femur fracture, he did not need ether the back or knee surgeries and he would need no further medical treatment for any of his injuries.

The jury also awarded, and the appellate court affirmed, damages for future medical expenses in the sum of $800,000 (35 years).

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff moved to the United States from Ecuador about a year before his accident. The trial judge granted plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendants from mentioning plaintiff’s immigration status (they claimed he is an illegal alien) in view of plaintiff’s withdrawal of his claim for future lost wages.

On March 16, 2012, Ninoska Morrobel was a seated passenger in a city transit authority bus that struck the rear of another motor vehicle on West Burnside Avenue in the Bronx. Ms. Morrobel, then 41 years old, claimed that she was injured when the impact caused her to be thrown to her right to the adjacent bus seat.

In her lawsuit against the bus driver and the transit authority, Ms. Morrobel’s motion for summary judgment as to liability was granted and the case proceeded to a trial on the issue of damages only. The Bronx County jury awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $2,155,000 ($625,000 past – 6 3/4 years, $1,530,000 future – 34 years).

In Morrobel v. Alicea (1st Dept. 2025), the judgment was affirmed.

Here are the injury details:

  • Emergency room treatment on day of accident with complaints of neck pain; conservative treatment (physical therapy, injections, etc.) for two years until shoulder surgery on 5/24/12 and spinal surgery two years later.
  • Neck – herniated disc at C5-6 requiring cervical discectomy and interbody fusion surgery
  • Shoulder – ligament tears requiring arthroscopic labral debridement and synovectomy

The defense argued that the accident did not cause the injuries complained of noting that (a) the impact was minimal (the bus driver took his foot of the brake causing the bus to roll forward and tap the other vehicle), (b) plaintiff was ambulatory at the scene and returned to work the next day as a home health aide and (c) plaintiff’s spinal surgery was related to a pre-existing congenital condition of the adjoining disc at C6-7.

Plaintiff claimed that she still had daily severe radiating neck pain and significant restricted ranges of motion that left her (a) unable to resume activities of daily living such as cooking and cleaning her home and (b) needing continuing prescription pain medication and medical treatment.

The jury also awarded and the appellate court affirmed $1,200,000 for future medical expenses. Plaintiff’s treating physicians testified that her injuries are permanent and progressive and she will require extensive future treatment including injections, therapy and revision surgery.

Inside Information:

  • In closing arguments, plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award $9,000,000 for plaintiff’s pain and suffering; defense counsel argued that plaintiff was entitled to nothing at all.