$8M Verdict Against City of Yonkers in Truck Crash

A Westchester County jury returned an $8 million verdict against the City of Yonkers following a collision involving a municipal truck and a driver who was parked on Ashburton Avenue. The plaintiff alleged that the city vehicle turned onto the roadway and struck his car, causing injuries that affected his daily functioning and ability to participate in community activities. The award reflects compensation for both non-economic damages and anticipated medical needs, and it underscores how municipal vehicle operations can expose local governments to substantial liability when a jury finds negligence and lasting harm.

Collision Allegations and Claimed Injuries

According to the plaintiff’s account of the incident, he was parked when a City of Yonkers truck turned onto Ashburton Avenue and collided with his vehicle. The claim framed the crash as preventable and attributable to negligent driving by a city employee operating a municipal vehicle in the course of city business. With the city named as defendant, the case proceeded as a negligence action seeking damages tied to both physical injuries and the longer-term impact on the plaintiff’s functioning and lifestyle.

The plaintiff reported injuries to his neck, left shoulder, lower back, and left knee. He also contended that these injuries materially altered his quality of life, including limitations on physical activity and reduced participation in the community activities he previously enjoyed. In presenting damages, the plaintiff emphasized that the effects were not confined to acute pain, but instead included continuing limitations requiring ongoing treatment and care planning. The nature and scope of the claimed injuries positioned the case to turn on credibility, causation, and the extent of permanency and future needs.

Trial Posture and Litigation Approach

The matter went to trial after the city extended a $35,000 pre-trial offer, a figure that contrasted sharply with the plaintiff’s asserted damages and anticipated future costs. The plaintiff’s trial team, led by Napoli Shkolnik partner Joseph Napoli and junior partner Stephen J. Maloney, Jr., sought to establish negligence and to quantify both the immediate and prospective consequences of the collision. The plaintiff’s presentation focused on the functional impact of multi-site injuries and the contention that continued care would be required to address pain, limitations, and recovery.

In a public statement after the verdict, Joseph Napoli said, “This case exemplifies our firm’s commitment to fighting for those who have been injured and securing the justice they deserve.” The case illustrates the trial dynamics that can emerge when a municipal defendant maintains a low pre-trial valuation while a plaintiff proceeds with a damages theory grounded in prolonged pain and continuing medical needs. It also reflects the practical leverage created when a jury is asked to assign dollar values to both past experience and forecasted future burden based on the plaintiff’s described limitations.

The $8 Million Verdict and Damages Allocation

The jury awarded a total of $8 million, with damages divided into categories that addressed both non-economic harm and future care. The breakdown reported $2 million for past pain and suffering and $4.5 million for future pain and suffering. The remaining $1.5 million was allocated to future medical expenses, reflecting an expectation that the plaintiff will require continued treatment or medical management tied to the crash-related injuries. This structure signals that the largest portion of the award was associated with projected long-term suffering rather than solely past losses.

From a legal perspective, the allocation provides a clear roadmap of how the jury evaluated the plaintiff’s alleged trajectory: a substantial future component suggests a finding of ongoing impairment or extended recovery rather than a temporary injury course. The future medical expense award, while smaller than the non-economic components, indicates that jurors accepted the need for continuing care as a compensable element distinct from pain and suffering. More broadly, the outcome highlights the exposure municipalities can face in vehicle cases when plaintiffs present lasting, activity-limiting injuries and persuade jurors that the harm will persist into the future.

Case Details

Court Name: Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester

Plaintiff Attorney(s): Napoli Shkolnik PLLC