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.

On March 15, 2017, Romeo Maffei, then 60 years old, underwent an MRI of his brain after he’d noticed an alarming change in his health – he was mumbling, slurring and couldn’t stand up. He was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer.

Mr. Maffei sued Burnham LLC, claiming that it, among other companies, negligently manufactured and sold products such as boilers that contained asbestos, a deadly toxic, failed to adequately warn about the dangers of the asbestos containing products and that his exposure to asbestos from his work as a construction laborer demolishing boilers for many years caused his cancer.

In 2023, a Manhattan jury agreed with plaintiff and awarded him pain and suffering damages in the sum of $26,500,000 ($6,600,000 past – 6.5 years, $19,900,000 future – 17.5 years). Both the liability and damages verdicts were affirmed in Maffei v. A.O. Smith Water Products (1st Dept. 2025).

Here are the injury details:

  • numerous invasive and painful procedures including a bronchoscopy, two gamma knife radiosurgeries (in which his skull was drilled into without anesthesia) and a major lung resection
  • extensive radiation and chemotherapy
  • continuing pain, headaches and abdominal discomfort requiring several medications including narcotics
  • mental anguish and anxiety especially related to fear of impending death

The jury also awarded and the appellate court sustained loss of consortium damages for plaintiff’s wife in the sum of $5,000,000 ($2,000,000 past, $3,000,00 future) and punitive damages in the sum of $6,500,000.

Plaintiff had been a heavy cigarette smoker for many years and the defense argued that this was the sole cause of his lung cancer, not asbestos. Plaintiff argued that smoking in combination with asbestos exposure increases a person’s risk of developing lung cancer. The jury found that plaintiff’s smoking was a substantial factor in causing his lung cancer and apportioned fault 15% to plaintiff and 85% to the defendant.

The defense also argued, alternatively, that because plaintiff’s lung cancer had been in remission since 2020 any award for future pain and suffering should be minimal. Plaintiff countered that he still suffered from the cancer and treatment that left him always in pain, disabled, extremely anxious and fearful that the cancer will recur and cause his death.

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.