New York Damages Intelligence Center: What the 2025–2026 Cases Teach Claims Professionals
A focused analysis of recent New York verdicts and appellate decisions, with practical guidance on reserves, future damages, functional loss, settlement structure, and judicially sustainable value.
Executive conclusion
The recent cases show a wider spread of outcomes—not a uniform increase in every claim.
Ordinary orthopedic claims remain within recognizable ranges. The files that move sharply upward usually combine several features: credible permanency, major functional loss, long future periods, reliable future-care proof, strong liability, and a persuasive plaintiff. Missing one of those links can materially reduce value even where treatment includes surgery.
Page navigation
Six Findings From the 2025–2026 Cases
Finding one
The headline verdict is often the least useful number in the file.
Recent matters demonstrate four separate numbers: the gross verdict, the amount likely to survive judicial review, the amount collectible under any agreement, and the carrier’s net exposure after fault and other reductions.
What the factfinder returned
Useful for trial-risk analysis, but not necessarily sustainable or collectible.
What survives judicial review
Usually the stronger benchmark for reserves and mediation.
What a high-low or cap permits
The governing payment figure may bear little resemblance to the verdict.
What remains after adjustments
Comparative fault, coverage, setoffs, and interest can materially change the result.
Rendon v White Castle System, Inc.
The jury awarded approximately $2.64 million in an ankle-injury case. The Second Department identified materially lower sustainable figures for several damages components. The decision is more useful as a map of acceptable components than as a $2.64 million comparable.
Flores v New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
The First Department reinstated $6.1 million for past pain and suffering after an extraordinary two-month course involving more than 35 procedures, brain infarcts, open wounds, amputation, and conscious suffering. Short duration did not mean modest value because the suffering was concentrated and extreme.
Powell v New York City Transit Authority
The database records a $90 million jury verdict, followed by substantial posttrial modification and comparative-fault effects, with a final tracked amount of approximately $38.67 million. The case illustrates why the original jury number should not be used without tracing every later adjustment.
Dispensa v Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC
The principal pain-and-suffering awards for permanent vision loss survived, while the spouse’s derivative award was reduced from $250,000 to $50,000. Derivative exposure should be supported and reserved independently.
Finding two
Future damages rise when the plaintiff proves duration, probability, and cost—not merely possibility.
A recommendation that treatment “may” be needed is not equivalent to a supported future-care stream. The strongest claims identify the treatment, medical necessity, expected frequency, duration, unit cost, and relationship to the accident.
= implied annual future value
Lewis v Ganesh
The First Department examined the pain-and-suffering awards in annual terms and sustained future medical expenses where the treating surgeon identified the treatment, explained why it would be needed, and approximated the costs.
Morrobel v Alicea
The award included substantial future pain and suffering and future medical expenses. The decision demonstrates the durability of future components when duration and cost are tied to competent testimony.
Enriquez v Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Three surgeries supported a higher past award, but future pain and suffering remained zero because medical evidence of the plaintiff’s current condition was missing. Historical treatment and future loss require separate analyses.
Flores v New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
The case also marks the limit of annualization. Dividing an extraordinary two-month medical course into a yearly figure can understate the severity of concentrated conscious suffering.
Finding three
Retained function can materially reduce the sustainable range.
Diagnosis and imaging establish the medical condition. Value often turns on the practical consequence: whether the plaintiff works, drives, attends school, travels, lives independently, performs household tasks, and cares for family.
Gogo v Swiander
The court considered the plaintiff’s ability to attend college, drive, live independently, and travel when reducing components of the traumatic-brain-injury award. The case is a strong reminder that functional discovery is not secondary damages discovery.
Dowdy v Brooklyn Hospital Center
The plaintiff’s fusion, defined 25-year future period, and future medical proof produced a substantial but structured award, subject to comparative-fault reduction. The case shows how treatment, function, duration, and net exposure must be analyzed together.
What can the body do?
Restrictions, gait, strength, endurance, cognition, and neurological function.
What does the plaintiff actually do?
Work, drive, travel, study, shop, maintain a home, and care for others.
Do the two pictures match?
Exposure narrows when claimed incapacity materially exceeds documented activity.
Finding four
Surgery raises the ceiling, but it does not establish permanency or future value.
Surgery can corroborate objective injury and past suffering. Its effect on future value depends on causation, recovery, residual limitations, employment, and probable additional care.
Grech v Debellis
The plaintiff sustained a leg fracture, underwent plate-placement surgery, and later required hardware removal following infection. The court awarded $75,000 for past pain and suffering and nothing for future pain and suffering because permanency and economic proof were inadequate.
Deflorio v County of Nassau
The database records an affirmed award including $1 million for past pain and suffering, $2.25 million for future pain and suffering, and $700,000 for future medical expenses after a severe ankle crush injury. The mechanism, permanency, and future-care proof placed the case in a different category from a routine fracture.
Finding five
A defense-favorable verdict can fail when its answers do not logically fit together.
The recent cases show recurring tension between serious-injury findings, permanency findings, future periods, medical-expense findings, and the amount awarded. Verdict-sheet design is therefore part of damages strategy—not merely trial administration.
Hichak v Grand Plumbing, Inc.
The plaintiff underwent a two-level cervical discectomy and posterior decompression fusion. The jury accepted a significant limitation but awarded only $15,000 for past pain and suffering and nothing for medical expenses. The court permitted a new damages trial on specified components because the findings could not be reconciled.
Gomez v New York City Transit Authority
The jury’s injury findings, long future-damages periods, and award amounts did not fit comfortably together. The resulting additur illustrates how an apparently favorable damages verdict can become unstable when the legal findings point toward a more serious loss.
Finding six
Settlement structure can matter as much as the verdict range.
High-low agreements are most effective when liability or causation creates a real defense but the injury still presents meaningful plaintiff-verdict risk. They are less useful where catastrophic damages create an upper tail that cannot be rationally capped.
Tereschenko v Greenhouse
The database records a $3.2 million verdict for comminuted arm and wrist fractures, but the parties had a $10,000/$450,000 high-low agreement. The verdict remains useful market intelligence; the agreement controlled the payment.
Young v Razzak
The database records a $120,000 summary-jury result involving alleged meniscus, lumbar, and cervical injuries, with a contractual high of $75,000. The result demonstrates the value of bounded trial risk in a case with genuine uncertainty.
Wide but bounded range
Moderate severity, a genuine defense, and a rational ceiling acceptable to both sides.
Unbounded catastrophic tail
Permanent dependence, major brain injury, amputation, or future care beyond an acceptable high.
Reserve and mediation framework
Use three valuation points and identify the next event that can move the file.
The most probable net result
Based on present liability, causation, medical, function, venue, and witness evidence.
A supportable plaintiff-favorable result
Grounded in current proof and appellate comparables—not merely a verdict headline.
A less probable but material downside
Used for excess notice, authority, coverage coordination, and trial planning.
- A procedure changes from possible to recommended or scheduled.
- A new surgery creates materially different residual limitations.
- A treating physician supplies credible permanency evidence.
- A life-care or vocational report quantifies future loss.
- Liability is resolved by summary judgment.
- Prior records materially strengthen the causation defense.
- Surveillance or public activity shows retained function.
- The plaintiff’s deposition changes the credibility assessment.
- A new appellate comparable changes the sustainable range.
- A high-low proposal changes the shape of trial risk.
Selected database cases
2025–2026 Cases at a Glance
| Case | Reported result | Primary analytical point |
|---|---|---|
| Powell v New York City Transit Authority | $90 million jury verdict; approximately $38.67 million final tracked amount | Trace posttrial, fault, and final-judgment adjustments before using a headline verdict. |
| Rendon v White Castle System, Inc. | Approximately $2.64 million verdict; lower sustainable components identified | Analyze every damages category independently. |
| Flores v New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. | $6.1 million past pain and suffering reinstated | Extreme concentrated suffering may support a high award despite short duration. |
| Gogo v Swiander | Approximately $4.146 million verdict; pain-and-suffering reduction | Retained education, driving, travel, and independent living can reduce TBI value. |
| Lewis v Ganesh | $600,000 past P&S; $400,000 future P&S; $300,000 future medical | Compare annualized value and the detail supporting future care. |
| Morrobel v Alicea | $625,000 past P&S; $1.53 million future P&S; $1.2 million future medical | Long future components become durable when duration and cost are supported. |
| Enriquez v Metropolitan Transportation Authority | Past award increased; future pain and suffering remained zero | Past surgeries do not substitute for current-condition and future-loss proof. |
| Hichak v Grand Plumbing, Inc. | New damages trial on specified components | Verdict answers must be internally consistent with accepted injury findings. |
| Gomez v New York City Transit Authority | Substantial increase following inconsistent damages findings | A nominal award may be unstable when the verdict recognizes significant injury. |
| Deflorio v County of Nassau | Approximately $3.95 million in itemized damages affirmed | Severe crush injury, permanency, and future care can escape ordinary fracture ranges. |
| Grech v Debellis | $75,000 past P&S; no future P&S | Surgery without sufficient permanency proof may still produce a restrained award. |
| Tereschenko v Greenhouse | $3.2 million verdict; $450,000 contractual high | Separate verdict intelligence from collectible exposure. |
Bottom line
The best damages analysis identifies why a case entered—or failed to enter—the upper valuation range.
The 2025–2026 cases do not justify mechanically increasing every reserve. They support a more disciplined approach: identify the value mechanism, test each damages component, account for retained function, distinguish past treatment from future proof, and separate the verdict from the amount likely to be paid.