Kahana Feld Appellate Team Successfully Vacates Judgment 

The Bronx County Supreme Court granted a motion filed by Kahana Feld Partner Jack Watkins and Senior Counsel Haydee Correa of the firm’s National Appellate Litigation & Consulting Group, vacating a plaintiff’s judgment obtained under unusual circumstances. 

Following a damages-only trial well-defended by defense counsel Jeff Van Etten, the jury returned a verdict of $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $100,000 for future pain and suffering, $176,000 for past medical expenses, and $4,000 for future medical expenses. Post-verdict, both sides requested the court revisit portions of the damages award. The Plaintiff sought additur on future pain and suffering, while the defense cross-moved for a reduction of the past medical expenses.  

The court conditionally granted both motions, directing a new trial on damages unless the parties agreed and stipulated to the adjusted figures of $2,000,000 for future pain and suffering and over $155,000 for past medical expenses. Before an agreement was reached, Plaintiff’s counsel, incredibly eager to lock in a $2,000,000 future pain and suffering award on a $100,000 jury verdict, filed a proposed judgment with a statement that the “plaintiff stipulated” to the increased sum – without an agreement from the defendant.  The Court signed the judgment without verifying the defendant’s consent. 

The KF team filed a CPLR 5015 motion to vacate, noting that the judgment had been entered in direct violation of the Court’s own order, which expressly required mutual consent of both parties as a condition precedent to entry of judgment. Seperately, as the late David D. Siegel explained in New York Practice, “the court cannot raise or lower [a pain and suffering verdict] sum directly … the court can grant a new trial ‘unless’ the defendant stipulates to a higher sum (‘additur’) or the plaintiff to a lower one (‘remittitur’).”  

As such, the Plaintiff’s assent to a higher pain and suffering award was irrelevant and legally defective (Siegel, Sec. 407 “Additur and Remittitur”). The Plaintiff’s assent to the reduced future medical award, however, remains binding. 

Despite the plaintiff’s opposition , the Court agreed and vacated the defective judgment.