## Facts

- Frank Miraglia was injured at a construction site while attempting to cross a trench.
- While traversing the trench, Miraglia fell and became impaled on a piece of reinforcing bar (rebar).
- Miraglia sued H & L Holding Corporation in connection with the accident.
- At trial, the jury saw graphic evidence, including pictures and testimony describing the surgical removal of the rebar and the nature of Miraglia’s injuries.
- A medical witness for Miraglia testified that the injury rendered Miraglia a paraplegic.
- The medical proof also described that Miraglia would likely experience excruciating nerve pain in his legs for the rest of his life.
- The jury awarded Miraglia $86 million in damages, including $20 million for past pain and suffering and $55 million for future pain and suffering.
- Lane & Sons Construction Corporation (a third-party defendant) moved after trial to reduce the damages award as excessive.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s $86 million damages award—particularly the awards for past and future pain and suffering—was excessive under CPLR 5501(c) because it materially deviated from reasonable compensation, warranting a reduction.

## Decision

- The court held that the jury’s pain-and-suffering awards were excessive under CPLR 5501(c).
- The court accepted that Miraglia’s injuries were catastrophic and supported by the trial proof, including evidence of permanent paraplegia and ongoing severe pain.
- Applying CPLR 5501(c), the court determined the pain-and-suffering awards materially deviated from reasonable compensation when measured against awards approved in comparable New York cases.
- The court ordered remittitur, conditionally reducing the pain-and-suffering damages to amounts the court found to be the maximum reasonable, with the alternative of a new trial on damages if the reduction was not accepted.

## Legal Principles

- Under CPLR 5501(c), a court must set aside or reduce a damages award that “deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation.”
- In evaluating whether an award materially deviates, courts compare the award to those approved in similar cases, considering the type of injury, permanency, pain, limitations, and expected duration of suffering.
- Even where liability and the seriousness of injury are established, a court may reduce non-economic damages when the jury’s figure falls outside the range supported by comparable decisions.
- A court may grant a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff stipulates to accept a reduced amount (remittitur) set by the court as the maximum reasonable award.

## Conclusion

In Miraglia v. H & L Holding Corporation, the court addressed a post-trial challenge to an $86 million verdict arising from a construction-site accident that left the plaintiff paraplegic and in severe, long-term pain. While recognizing the devastating and permanent nature of the injuries proven at trial, the court concluded that the jury’s past and future pain-and-suffering awards materially deviated from reasonable compensation under CPLR 5501(c) and therefore ordered a conditional reduction of those damages in lieu of a new trial on damages.


Miraglia v. H & L Holding Corporation, 799 N.Y.S.2d 162 (2004)