Isernio v. New York City, 71 N.Y.2d 798 (1988)
CPLR 4545(b)(1) only authorizes the reduction of damages awards by collateral source reimbursements for pre-verdict losses in actions against public employers for work-related injuries commenced before June 28, 1986.
Summary
Plaintiff, a police officer, sued New York City for injuries sustained during his employment. A jury awarded damages for past and future pain and suffering, and lost earnings. The defendant moved to offset the award by sums the plaintiff would receive from collateral sources. The motion was denied for future lost income. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that CPLR 4545(b)(1) only allows offsets for collateral source reimbursements for pre-verdict losses, as the statute’s language refers to costs that “were replaced or indemnified,” indicating a past tense and legislative intent to limit offsets to pre-verdict losses.
Facts
The plaintiff, a New York City police officer, sustained injuries during the course of his employment.
He filed a personal injury action against New York City on June 5, 1986.
A jury trial resulted in an award for past and future pain and suffering, and lost earnings.
The City moved to offset the award by collateral source payments, specifically regarding future lost income reimbursement.
Procedural History
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to offset the award with collateral source reimbursements for the plaintiff’s future lost income.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether CPLR 4545(b)(1) permits the offset of a damages award by collateral source reimbursements for future losses in actions against public employers for work-related injuries commenced before June 28, 1986.
Holding
No, because the use of the past tense in CPLR 4545(b)(1) indicates a legislative intention to permit offsets only for collateral-source reimbursements for pre-verdict losses.
Court’s Reasoning
The court based its reasoning primarily on the plain language of CPLR 4545(b)(1), which states that a damages award can be reduced to the extent that a cost or expense “was replaced or indemnified” from a collateral source. The use of the past tense indicates that the legislature intended to permit offsets only for collateral-source reimbursements for pre-verdict losses.
The court further supported its reasoning by comparing CPLR 4545(b) with its companion provisions, CPLR 4545(a) and CPLR 4545(c). CPLR 4545(a), governing medical malpractice actions, was amended to permit offsets for “past or future” costs or expenses. CPLR 4545(c), governing all personal injury actions commenced after June 28, 1986, also contains a reference to past and future costs. The court noted that the legislature did not amend CPLR 4545(b) in a similar fashion, leading to the conclusion that the legislature did not intend to permit reductions for future collateral-source payments in actions governed by subdivision (b).
The court acknowledged the overall legislative purpose of preventing double recoveries from public employers but stated that the legislature chose to accomplish this purpose by enacting a limited measure addressed only to those double recoveries that result from collateral-source reimbursement of pre-verdict costs and expenses. The court noted that the statute’s language demonstrated that the legislature chose to address the issue of double recovery in a limited manner.
The court addressed CPLR 4545(b)(3), which provides for the admission of certified actuarial reports as evidence of the present value of any death benefit, dependent benefit, or disability retirement allowance. The court found this provision unpersuasive proof of contrary legislative intent, arguing that its purpose at the time of enactment was unclear, especially considering that it was not customary for juries to consider the present value of future damages. It concluded that any reduction of future collateral-source payments to present value would be met with a parallel reduction in the future damages to be offset, rendering the provision without practical effect in this context.