In 2022, Beverly Quentin sued her paternal uncle Grannell E. Knox, alleging that on more than a dozen occasions from 1967-1970, he raped and/or otherwise sexually abused her while she was between 7 and 10 years old and he was between 17 and 19 years old. The lawsuit was brought under the 2019 so-called Child Victims Act (CPLR Section 214-g) which allows any person who was under the age of 18 when she or he was the victim of any sexual criminal conduct to sue the perpetrator for damages even though such a suit would otherwise be time-bared from a civil action.

The defendant testified that he never raped or otherwise sexually abused his niece; while plaintiff testified to over 20 instances of sexual abuse including oral sex and vaginal rape. The Westchester jury credited plaintiff’s testimony and rendered a verdict finding that there was in fact sexual contact between the plaintiff and the defendant when the plaintiff was under the age of 14.

The jury then awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $4,000,000 ($3,000,000 past – 55 years, $1,000,000 future – 18 years) as well as punitive damages in the sum of $1,000,000.

In Quentin v. Knox (2d Dept. 2026), the damages awards have all been affirmed.

In the damages phase of the trial, the only testimony presented was that of plaintiff herself who by then had been married for 35 years with three well-adjusted children and was gainfully employed. Despite her seemingly successful adult life, plaintiff described her lost childhood and innocence because of the abuse. She said she’d had a lifetime of nightmares and that every day she wakes up and feels like she puts on a coat of armor to protect herself, and that this has been a heavy burden to carry.

Inside Information:

  • Plaintiff did not tell anyone about the abuse until she told a college roommate about 10 years later. She said she’d been fearful of her own life after her uncle told her he’d bury her alive if she disclosed what had happened. She also said that defendant told her if she resisted or tried to avoid him he would similarly abuse her sister.
  • Plaintiff did not seek any psychological counseling unil after the lawsuit was brought.

On March 13, 2018, Frank Dispensa was examined by an ophthalmologist who found that his left optic nerve was swollen and an MRI was therefore needed to rule out a mass lesion. Mr. Dispensa, then 78 years old, had the MRI done that day. It was read by a Poughkeepsie radiologist who concluded there was no mass.

Eight months later, another physician found that there had been a meningioma (a tumor) on Mr. Dispensa’ s left optic nerve. Mr. Dispensa ended up losing all vison in his left eye.

Mr. Dispensa sued the radiologist claiming that he failed to timely diagnose the meningioma and that the delay caused his vision loss. A Dutchess County jury agreed and awarded pain and suffering damages in the sum of $1,450,000 ($1,100,000 past – five years, $350,000 future – seven years).

In Dispensa v. Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC (2d Dept. 2026), both the liability and damages verdicts have been affirmed.

Plaintiff had a long history of amblyopia (lazy eye) in his right eye that left him largely dependent on his left eye; however, his left eye was good enough that he enjoyed a 30 year career at IBM writing software for mainframe computers and, when he retired in 1992, he could read newspapers, drive himself, taught professional photography and engaged in hobbies such as building computers. After he lost all vision in his left eye, plaintiff was unable to read newspapers, could drive only in his neighborhood and only during the day and he became socially isolated. Thus, plaintiff claimed, the loss of vision in his left eye had the effect of taking away substantially all of his ability to see.

Inside Information:

  • The jury awarded loss of services damages to plaintiff’s wife in the sum of $250,000. A year and a half after the verdict was rendered, but before the appellate court decision, she died at the age of 80. Her award was reduced to $50,000.

On August 24, 2010, Mauro Rojas was working as an installer helper for an awning company at the 1700 First Avenue construction site in Manhattan when he was exposed to an electrical shock and sustained injuries.

In his ensuing Labor Law lawsuit against the site owner and general contractor, liability was found against the defendants; then the jury awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $75,000 (all past – 10 years). The jury also awarded $300,000 for 10 years of past loss of earnings (but nothing at all for the future) and $11,000 for two years of future medical expenses. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the damages awards were inadequate.

In Rojas v. 1700 First Avenue LLC (2d Dept. 2025), the appellate court rejected plaintiff’s arguments and affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff claimed that as he was attempting to remove an awning, all of its weight came down on him and he felt a shock in his hand. The next thing he knew, he was on the ground and two fingers (middle and index) were burning and he had pain all over his body. A witness saw smoke coming from his head and mouth. He was taken by ambulance to the hospital where his burns were treated and he was released.

Five days later, Mr. Rojas’s wife took him back to the emergency room where he complained of pain all over his body including his head and face. Diagnostic studies were negeative and he was treated and released to home.

Mr. Rojas, then 33 years old, next sought medical treatment two weeks later when he was given pain medication and started on physical therapy. Over the years, he continued to seek medical attention for his continuing pain and psychological issues (such as panic attacks), underwent several MRIs, endured painful injections and submitted to the following surgeries:

  • Lumbar – L5-S1 spinal fusion on 2/1/12
  • Cervical – C3-4 discectomy and fusion on 1/15/14
  • Eye – Cataract removal and lens replacement (one eye) in 2016

Plaintiff also underwent extensive psychological testing and treatment and claimed significant post-traumatic stress syndrome (“PTSD”).

Several medical and other experts testified for plaintiff that all of the foregoing was related to the accident, he was unable to return to work and that he’d need all kinds of treatment and medication in the future (costing about $1,000,000) due to ongoing pain and limitations.

Defendants argued that the only injuries plaintiff sustained in the accident were the burns to his two fingers, he could return to work and needs no future medical treatment.

Inside Information:

  • The only defense medical expert to testify was an ophthalmologist.
  • There was a note in the records of plaintiff’s psychologist (who first examined him more than four years after the accident) that read: “Wife is manipulative and controlling of him … possible embellishment issues for secondary gains.”
  • In his summation, defense counsel stated: ” if you give any money I believe it sends a message to all involved, that the entire network, these doctors and lawyers are going to just keep on going. I want you to send a message we were not fooled by this.”

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.