MARIO IAZZETTI ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT.
94 N.Y.2d 183 (1999).
December 2, 1999
1 No. 183
(99 NY Int. 0169)
Decided December 2, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Steven G. Mintz, for appellants.
Cheryl Payer, for respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
What is the proper statutory predicate for collateral source
reductions in personal injury and wrongful death actions brought by
public employees against their employers? The answerturns on whether
CPLR 4545(c) -- enacted after CPLR 4545(b), and applicable to "
any action brought to recover damages for personal injury" -- repealed
subdivision (b) by implication. We conclude that there has been no
implied repeal, that CPLR 4545(b) governs and that the Appellate
Division erred in applying CPLR 4545(c) to reduce plaintiffs' jury
verdict for future lost earnings.
Plaintiff Mario Iazzetti, an employee of the New York City Department
of Sanitation, sustained a disabling back injury when he stepped into
an unprotected drain opening at the garage where he worked. At the
time of the injury, plaintiff was 40 years old and had worked at the
Department of Sanitation for approximately 18 years. The Board of
Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System
subsequently granted plaintiff Accident Disability Retirement status.
Under the terms of his retirement plan, plaintiff receives a pension
equal to three-quarters of his last annual salary, as well as an
annuity based on his accumulated contributions to the retirement
system (Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-175(b)).
Plaintiff and his wife commenced this personal injury action against
the City of New York, alleging that the Department of Sanitation had
negligently created the dangerous condition that caused his injury. On
October 2, 1992, the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiffs, awarding
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The answerturns on whether CPLR 4545-- enacted after CPLR 4545, and applicable to " any
We conclude that there has been no implied repeal, that CPLR 4545governs and that the
Plaintiff Mario Iazzetti, an employee of the New York City Department of Sanitation,
Under the terms of his retirement plan, plaintiff receives a pension equal to three-quarters
Following a collateral source hearing, Supreme Court determined that CPLR 4545entitled the
Because the pension had already paid plaintiff more than the verdict award for past loss of
The court refused, however, to reduce the jury award for future losses, on the ground that
Agency (87 NY2d 81), Supreme Court concluded that the City adequately demonstrated the
Because we conclude that CPLR 4545survived the enactment of CPLR 4545and governs the
In 1981, the Legislature made reduction for compensation from collateral sources mandatory in
At the same time, the Legislature enacted CPLR 4545, which extended collateral source offsets
"In any action brought to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property or wrongful
the amount credited to defendant under CPLR 4545and excludes an amount equal to the premiums
The Legislature "is hardly reticent to repeal statutes when it means to do so"; a statute
If, on the other hand, its intention was for to consume and, the Legislature could have
Doing so is possible, according to defendant, because does not forbid setoffs for future
|
