SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF CHAUTAUQUA
_____________________________________________
MICHAEL A. KULPA;
AND BRENDA KULPA
Plaintiffs,
vs Index No. H-03487
GBP INDUSTRIES, INC. D/B/A
CHEMICAL PROCESS SYSTEMS/SERVICE
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
GBP INDUSTRIES, INC. D/B/A
CHEMICAL PROCESS SYSTEMS/SERVICE
Third-Party Plaintiff
vs Index No. H-03487
A. W. FARRELL & SON, INC.
Third-Party Defendant
_____________________________________________
MISERENDINO, CELNIKER,
SEEGERT, & ESTOFF, P.C.
(Jonathan D. Estoff, Esq.
of Counsel) for Plaintiff
HURWITZ & FINE, P.C.
(Dan D. Kohane, Esq.
of Counsel) for Defendant
WILLIAM A. LONG, ESQ.
Attorney for Chemical Process
ROBERT M. LIPPMAN, ESQ.
Attorney for A.W. Farrell
DECISION AND ORDER
March 5 , 1996
GERACE, J.
Plaintiff moves to set aside the verdict on grounds
that the amounts awarded to him deviated materially from
what would be reasonable compensation for damages from the
result of a fall from a roof.
Plaintiff suffered fractures of four vertabra in his
lower back and will not be able to return to work as a
roofer.
The jury rendered a verdict as follows:
To the date of the verdict:
Medical.... $21,324.
Loss of earnings.... $132,430.
Pain & Suffering.... $12,000.
Future expenses:
Medical.... $2,000.
Loss of earnings.... $24,377.
Pain & suffering.... $5.000.
Total $197,131.
Defendant claims that a possible interpretation of the
evidence is that the jury felt that plaintiff's injuries
were not causally related to the accident. This is refuted
by the verdict for damages to the date of verdict. If the
jury did not believe the injuries were causally related,
they would not have awarded the amount they did.
The standard of review to overturn a verdict is that
it must "deviate materially from what would be reasonable
compensation." See PruntyvYMCAofLockport,Inc., 206
AD2d 911.
The Court finds that the verdict was contrary to the
weight of the credible evidence at trial and constitutes a
material deviation from reasonable compensation.
Plaintiff's earnings as a roofer had he not been injured
was undisputed.
Although some question was raised concerning his
future earnings with the National Guard, there was no
dispute by defendant as to the amount defendant would have
earned had he remained with the Guard.
Defendant's own vocation rehabilitation expert
conceded plaintiff's disability and testified to his lower
earning capacity. Even using this expert's own figures,
the jury award is contrary to the evidence presented.
Furthermore, the jury found that plaintiff would
continue to experience pain and suffering for forty years.
Testimony was unrebutted that he would have future medical
expenses greater than $2,000.
This verdict deviates materially.
The motion for a new trial is granted unless the
defendant agrees to an award of damages as follows:
Pain and suffering to date of trial $12,000.
Loss of earnings to date of trial $132,430.
Medical to date of trial 21,324.
Future Loss of Earnings 200,000.
Future medical 5,000.
Pain and suffering 40,000.
Total Damages $410,754.
The signing, filing, and mailing of a copy by the
Court of this Decision and Order to all Counsel shall not
constitute notice of entry required by CPLR 2220. Counsel
are not relieved from the applicable provisions of that
section respecting notice of entry.
THIS IS THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THIS COURT.
Dated: March 5, 1996
Mayville, New York
_________________________________
JOSEPH GERACE
Supreme Court Justice
PAPERS CONSIDERED:
(1) Notice of Motion; dated October 30, 1995.
(2) Affidavit in Opposition; dated November 21, 1995.
(3) Reply Affidavit; dated December 4, 1995.
(4) Affidavit in Reply; dated December 13, 1995.
(5) Attorney's Affidavit in Response; dated January 9,
1996.
(6) Excerpt of Testimony; dated September 15, 1995.
To all Counsel:
Please take notice that a DECISION and ORDER of
which the within is a copy, is duly granted in the above
entitled action on the day of , 1996, and
filed by the Court in the office of the Clerk of the County
of Chautauqua on the same date.