In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York modified a jury verdict in the case of Nardone v. Tow Rific Auto Service, LLC. The decision, issued on August 5, 2026, affects Eugene Nardone and his wife, Lindsay Nardone, who were seeking damages for injuries sustained in an accident. The court's ruling is significant as it adjusts the compensation awarded to the plaintiffs, particularly concerning loss of consortium.
The case arose after Eugene Nardone suffered a serious injury while on property leased and controlled by Tow Rific Auto Service, LLC. Eugene fell and sustained a tear to his right rotator cuff, which required surgery and physical therapy. The Nardones filed a lawsuit seeking damages for Eugene's personal injuries and for Lindsay's loss of consortium, which refers to the loss of companionship and support due to a spouse's injury.
The dispute reached the appellate court after a jury trial. During the trial, the jury awarded Eugene $40,000 for past pain and suffering but did not award any compensation for future pain and suffering. Lindsay received only $5,000 for her loss of consortium. The Nardones believed these amounts were inadequate, leading them to file a motion to set aside the jury's verdict. They sought a new trial on the issue of damages, arguing that the compensation did not reflect the severity of Eugene's injuries.
The court ruled on the Nardones' appeal following the jury's verdict. The judges involved in the decision were Colleen D. Duffy, Linda Christopher, Barry E. Warhit, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez. The court upheld the jury's award of $40,000 for past pain and suffering and the $0 award for future pain and suffering, stating that the jury's decisions were not contrary to the weight of the evidence presented during the trial. The court noted, "The award for past pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation."
However, the court found that the jury's award of $5,000 for Lindsay's past loss of consortium was inadequate. The ruling stated that this amount deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation. As a result, the court modified the previous order to grant a new trial on the issue of damages for past loss of consortium unless the defendant agrees to increase the award to $20,000.
The decision is important as it highlights the court's discretion in reviewing jury verdicts, particularly in personal injury cases. The judges emphasized that a jury's determination regarding damages should not be set aside unless it materially deviates from reasonable compensation standards. In this case, the court recognized the need for a fairer compensation for Lindsay's loss of consortium.
Moving forward, the ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving personal injuries and loss of consortium claims. It underscores the importance of ensuring that jury awards accurately reflect the impact of injuries on a victim's life and their family's well-being. This case may also influence how future juries assess damages in personal injury lawsuits.
As for what comes next, the defendant has 30 days to either agree to the increased award of $20,000 for past loss of consortium or face a new trial on that issue. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for personal injury cases in New York, especially regarding how courts evaluate and adjust jury verdicts.