Chioffe v. Pyne, 2020-642 Q C

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
Citation73 Misc.3d 140 (A),155 N.Y.S.3d 527 (Table)
Decision Date03 December 2021
Parties Jennifer Nicole CHIOFFE, Respondent, v. William H. PYNE, III, Appellant.
Docket Number2020-642 Q C

73 Misc.3d 140 (A)
155 N.Y.S.3d 527 (Table)

Jennifer Nicole CHIOFFE, Respondent,
v.
William H. PYNE, III, Appellant.

2020-642 Q C

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, Second Dept., 2, 11, 13 Jud. Dist.

Decided on December 3, 2021


Martyn & Martyn (Catherine M. Martyn of counsel), for appellant.

Lawrence B. Goodman, for respondent.

PRESENT: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's motion is granted to the extent of setting aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages for future pain and suffering as excessive, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court, Queens County, for a new trial on the issue of damages for future pain and suffering unless, within 30 days after service upon plaintiff of a copy of this decision and order, plaintiff serves and files in the office of the Clerk of the New York City Civil Court, Queens County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the amount of damages for future pain and suffering from the principal sum of $750,000 to the principal sum of $300,000; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

The instant personal injury action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 19, 2010, when plaintiff was 17 years old. Plaintiff was a back seat passenger in her friend's vehicle when it was struck in the rear by a pickup truck and then propelled into the vehicle in front of her. Liability was conceded and a trial was held on the issue of damages, at which plaintiff testified that she experiences pain in her neck "practically all the time" since the accident and that she can no longer do things she used to do. Plaintiff's orthopedist testified that the accident had caused plaintiff to suffer a "significant bulge" in her cervical spine as seen in her MRI film, which bulge is compatible with plaintiff's complaints of pain. Plaintiff's orthopedist also found restrictions in the range of motion of plaintiff's cervical spine after performing range of motion tests just days after the accident, which restrictions were still present when he examined her four years after the accident. Defendant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT