Okrayaents v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
| Decision Date | 21 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 08 Civ. 0127(CM).,No. 06 Civ. 7910(CM)(HBP).,06 Civ. 7910(CM)(HBP).,08 Civ. 0127(CM). |
| Citation | 555 F.Supp.2d 420 |
| Parties | Dmitry OKRAYNETS and Tatiana Okraynets, Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, MTA New York City Transit, MTA Capital Construction Company and New York City Transit Authority, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
David Jaroslawicz, Jaroslawicz & Jaros, LLC, Robert Joseph Tolchin, Robert J. Tolchin, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Cynthia Goldman, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, Joseph A. D'Avanzo, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Stamford, CT, Charles Christopher De Martino, Wilson Elser, Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MOTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES 59 AND 50(B)
After a trial on damages only, a jury awarded $44,706,444 to Dmitry Okraynets ("plaintiff) and his wife, Tatiana Okraynets (together, "plaintiffs"). Defendants now move, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 50(b), for an order: (1) granting a new trial on all damages, or in the alternative; (2) setting aside as excessive the jury's awards to Mr. Okraynets for pain and suffering and to Mrs. Okraynets for loss of services and society, and granting a new trial on those issues unless plaintiffs stipulate to the remittitur set by the Court; (3) setting aside the jury's award for past and future fringe benefits as a matter of law; (4) setting aside as excessive the jury's award for past and future lost wages and all future medical, personal and household expenses, and granting a new trial on those issues unless plaintiffs stipulate to the remittitur set by the Court; and (5) granting a collateral source hearing under N.Y. Civ. PRAC. LAW AND RULES ("C.P.L.R.") § 4545 and Article 50.
For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion for a new trial is granted on the issues of Mr. Okraynets' pain and suffering, Mrs. Okraynets' loss of services and society, and Mr. Okraynets' loss of future fringe benefits, unless plaintiffs stipulate within 30 days of the date of this decision to the reduced awards of $2,500,000 for Mr. Okraynets' past pain and suffering, $8,000,000 for Mr. Okraynets' future pain and suffering, $100,000 for Mrs. Okraynets' past loss of services and society, $650,000 for Mrs. Okraynets' future loss of services and society, and $3,730,000 for Mr. Okraynets' future lost fringe benefits. The Court also grants defendants' motion for a hearing to determine collateral source set-offs. Defendants' other requests for relief are denied.
Prior to his injury, Dmitry Okraynets was a union carpenter. On August 24, 2006, while working on the South Ferry Terminal construction site, Mr. Okraynets was injured when the gang of Doka forms to which he was harnessed detached from the wall, and he fell — along with the heavy forms, which landed on top of him — from a height of at least nine feet. (Trial Transcript (hereinafter, "Tr.") at 33-34.) Plaintiff was wearing an approved safety harness when the gang of forms separated from the wall that was being constructed. As a result of the accident, plaintiff suffered a host of serious injuries, including paraplegia resulting from a burst fracture at vertebra T-12, and he is permanently confined to a wheelchair. (Tr. 34; Court Ex. 9.) Mr. Okraynets brought this diversity action under New York Labor Law § 240(1), seeking damages for pain and suffering and economic loss, both past and future. Mrs. Okraynets brought a derivative action for loss of services and society.
Defendants conceded liability before jury selection, and the Court held a jury trial on damages from March 3-12, 2008. The jury rendered a verdict awarding damages for several items, resulting in a total award of $44,706,444. The itemized awards are as follows:
Past Damages
Pain and suffering $ 5,000,000
Loss of wages $ 129,150
Loss of fringe benefits $ 53,049
Hospital/medical expenses $ 498,376 (stipulation)
Loss of services/society $ 1,000,000 (Tatiana Okraynets)
Future Damages
Pain and suffering $15,000,000 (over 39 years)
Loss of wages $ 5,261,135 (over 30 years)
Loss of fringe benefits $ 4,214,734 (over 30 years)
Medical care & treatment $ 2,100,000 (over 39 years)
Medications $ 1,000,000 (over 39 years)
Home health aide $ 4,250,000 (over 39 years)
Home modifications, education, $ 700,000 (over 39 years)
training, transportation expenses
Adaptive equipment, personal care $ 1,500,000 (over 39 years)
supplies
Loss of services/society $ 4,000,000 (over 39 years)
(Tatiana Okraynets)
DISCUSSION
I. Defendants' Motion for a New Trial on All Damages
I will first address defendants' contentions that I should grant a new trial on all damages under Rule 59 based on (I) the admission of testimony concerning the effect of plaintiffs injuries on Tatiana Okraynets and her family; (ii) summation comments by plaintiffs' counsel; and (hi) the timing of the disclosures of the reports and opinions by Dr. Guy W. Fried, M.D., and Dr. Yuri Brosgol, M.D.
The Court has significant discretion in deciding whether to grant a Rule 59 motion for a new trial. See, e.g., Amato v. City of Saratoga Springs, 170 F.3d 311, 314 (2d Cir.1999). In determining whether to order a new trial under Rule 59, a district court may independently weigh the evidence. See, e.g., Song v. Ives Labs., Inc., 957 F.2d 1041, 1047 (2d Cir.1992); Geressy v. Digital Equip. Corp., 980 F.Supp. 640, 646 (E.D.N.Y.1997). A motion for a new trial "may be granted even if there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict." Song, 957 F.2d at 1047. A jury's verdict, however, should not be disturbed unless it is seriously erroneous: Bevevino v. Saydjari, 574 F.2d 676, 684 (2d Cir.1978); see also Caruolo v. John Crane, Inc., 226 F.3d 46, 54 (2d Cir.2000) ().
During the trial, the jury heard testimony from Mrs. Okraynets' psychotherapist, Dr. Anna Krayn — as well as from Mrs. Okraynets herself — regarding the psychological impact of Dmitry Okraynets' injuries upon his wife and family. This testimony was subsequently stricken from the record by the Court when, at the close of plaintiffs' case, plaintiffs' counsel (Mr. Sacks) was unable to provide any legal support for the claim that Mrs. Okraynets could collect damages, derivatively, related to her psychological and emotional trauma as a result of her husband's injuries. (See Tr. 581-83, 787-88.) The Court then gave the jurors a curative instruction that they were not to consider any evidence related to this claim. (Tr. 805, 886-87.) My instruction to the jury at the close of evidence was as follows:
I need to tell you, and I will tell you again during the charge, that as a result of arguments that were made by the lawyers out of your hearing, I have concluded that certain testimony needs to be stricken. I am going to tell you now that I have stricken the testimony of Dr. Anna Krayn, Mrs. Okraynets' psychotherapist, and Mrs. Okraynets' own testimony about her emotional suffering, and you're to disregard that testimony as though it was never given.
You're also to disregard any testimony that you heard from Mr. Welsch or from Dr. Schuster concerning expenses incurred or to be incurred by Mrs. Okraynets for her psychological or emotional injuries. I wanted to tell you that before the arguments.
(Tr. 805.)
I reiterated this instruction during the jury charge:
Now, under the laws of the State of New York, Tatiana Okraynets' damages are limited to loss of services and society. Mrs. Okraynets may not receive damages for her own medical expenses, if any, or for her own physical or mental pain and suffering. As a result, I have stricken from the record the testimony of Dr. Anna Krayn, Mrs. Okraynets' psychotherapist, and Mrs. Okraynets' own testimony about her emotional suffering. I charge you to disregard that testimony. Do not consider it in any way as you award damages either to Mrs. Okraynets or to Mr. Okraynets. You should also disregard any testimony that you heard from Mr. Welsch or Dr. Schuster concerning expenses incurred or to he incurred by Mrs. Okraynets for her psychological or emotional injuries.
(Tr. 886-87.)
Defendants contend that a new trial is warranted because the Court's curative instructions to the jury to disregard the stricken testimony were insufficient to avoid unfair prejudice against defendants by the jury.
[1] As the Second Circuit has observed, it must be presumed that juries are able to understand the court's instructions, and that juries follow these instructions. See, e.g., Trademark Research Corp. v. Maxwell Online, Inc., 995 F.2d 326, 340 (2d Cir.1993); United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784, 790 (2d Cir.1984) (citation omitted). I have no reason to believe that the jury ignored or failed to understand the Court's curative instructions. Nor do I see why justice requires that a new trial be ordered as a result of the stricken testimony. Federal Rule 61 provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allam v. Meyers
...Gasperini, 518 U.S. at 425, 116 S.Ct. at 2218–19;Welch v. UPS, 871 F.Supp.2d 164, 191–92 (E.D.N.Y.2012); Okraynets v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 555 F.Supp.2d 420, 434–35 (S.D.N.Y.2008). In determining whether an award “deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation,”N.Y. C.P.L.R......
-
Claudio v. Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free Sch. Dist.
...summation is undermined by the fact that it did not object to the statements in question during trial. See Okraynets v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 555 F.Supp.2d 420, 430 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (concluding that defendants did not show “undue prejudice” arising from summation comment where defendant's cou......
-
Burnett v. Ocean Props., Ltd.
...feel you, yourselves, would like to be compensated if the conditions happened to you the same as happened to [plaintiff]’ " 555 F. Supp. 2d 420, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting Weintraub v. Zabontinsky , 19 A.D.2d 906, 244 N.Y.S.2d 905 (2d Dep't 1963)) ; (citing Callaghan v. A Lague Express , ......
-
Grant v. City of Syracuse
...A review of comparable awards shows that such awards often fall within a "low six-figure range". Okraynets v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority, 555 F.Supp.2d 420, 440 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ; see also Walsh v. State of New York, 232 A.D.2d 939, 648 N.Y.S.2d 816 (1996) (upholding a $ 185,000 on a wif......