LG 55 Doe v. Joseph A. Grasso
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
A personal injury and child sexual abuse damages dispute arising under the Child Victims Act, CPLR 214-g [revival provision permitting certain previously time-barred civil claims based on child sexual abuse].
After a jury found for plaintiff, Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to set aside the verdict and granted plaintiff's motion to correct the verdict, increasing the future pain and suffering award to $1,000,000 and future medical expenses to $200,000 based on juror affidavits indicating the jury intended annual rather than lump-sum awards.
The Appellate Division set aside only the damages awards for past medical expenses and future medical expenses, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Plaintiff proved only $37,776 in past medical expenses, and the future medical expense award was not established with reasonable certainty but rested partly on speculation.
Background
Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging that defendant sexually abused him when defendant was a school principal and priest. The action was brought under the Child Victims Act, CPLR 214-g [revival provision permitting certain previously time-barred civil claims based on child sexual abuse]. Following trial, the jury awarded plaintiff damages for past and future pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings, and punitive damages.
Lower Court Decision
The jury awarded plaintiff $2,000,000 for past pain and suffering, $50,000 for future pain and suffering over 20 years, $50,000 for past medical expenses, $10,000 for future medical expenses over 20 years, $275,000 in past lost earnings, $65,000 in future lost earnings, and $3,000,000 in punitive damages. On posttrial motions, Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion to correct the verdict and changed the future pain and suffering award to $1,000,000 and the future medical expense award to $200,000, concluding that the jury intended annual awards. The court denied defendant's motion to set aside the verdict or obtain a new trial.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division dismissed the separate appeal from the posttrial order as subsumed in the final judgment. It rejected defendant's preserved challenges to the punitive damages procedure, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting lost earnings, the admission of plaintiff's economist, and the use of juror affidavits to correct the verdict. It also declined to review, in the interest of justice, unpreserved arguments concerning bifurcation and remote expert testimony. The court agreed, however, that the medical expense awards were unsupported in part. It held that plaintiff proved only $37,776 in past medical expenses and failed to establish any future medical expenses with reasonable certainty. The judgment was modified by setting aside those awards and granting a new trial limited to past and future medical expenses unless plaintiff stipulates within 20 days to reduce past medical expenses to $37,776 and future medical expenses to $0.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that damages for medical expenses must be supported by competent proof and reasonable certainty; speculative future treatment costs cannot stand. It also confirms that juror affidavits may be used to correct an honest mistake in expressing the jury's actual intent, without improperly impeaching the verdict.
Most of the plaintiff's verdict survived, including punitive damages and lost earnings, but medical expense awards were reduced because the evidence proved only $37,776 in past expenses and did not reliably support any future medical costs.