Lahren v. Boehmer Transportation Corp.

Summary

In this personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, defendants conceded liability and the jury awarded damages for various past and future losses. The court upheld the admission of surveillance evidence, the cross-examination concerning housing expenses, the future-damages award, and the denial of future loss-of-consortium damages. It also affirmed a collateral-source offset for future medical expenses under CPLR 4545(c).

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs waived appellate review of the admission of the surveillance videotape by stipulating to its admission at trial.
2. The trial court properly permitted cross-examination concerning the amount plaintiff paid in rent because the inquiry was relevant to whether she had the financial ability to move to a more appropriate residence and mitigate her damages.
3. Plaintiffs did not preserve for appellate review their challenge to the limitation of their attorney's direct and redirect examination of plaintiff's doctor because they failed to object at trial.
4. Plaintiffs failed to preserve their claim that the verdict was inconsistent because they did not object before the jury was discharged.
5. The award for future damages did not materially deviate from reasonable compensation.
6. The failure to award damages for future loss of consortium was not against the weight of the evidence.
7. Supreme Court properly granted a collateral-source offset for the award of future medical expenses because the evidence established with reasonable certainty that the expenses would be replaced or indemnified by no-fault insurance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs waived their challenge to admission of the surveillance videotape by stipulating to its admission at trial.
2. Whether defendants could cross-examine plaintiff about her rent to show her financial ability to move to a residence better suited to her alleged disabilities and thereby mitigate damages.
3. Whether plaintiffs preserved their challenge to the time limit imposed on examination of their medical expert.
4. Whether plaintiffs preserved a challenge that the verdict was internally inconsistent.
5. Whether the awards for future damages materially deviated from reasonable compensation.
6. Whether the denial of future loss-of-consortium damages was against the weight of the evidence.
7. Whether Supreme Court properly granted a collateral-source offset for future medical expenses under CPLR 4545(c).

Disposition

affirmed