Stanford Cummings

The plaintiff was previously awarded $345,000 in damages following a default judgment for historical sexual abuse.

In this endorsement, the court determined the plaintiff's entitlement to pre-judgment interest and costs.

The court found that pre-judgment interest began to run on the date the statement of claim was issued, applying the prescribed rate of 5 percent per year to the general non-pecuniary damages.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity scale pursuant to the Victims' Bill of Rights, fixing the total costs at $35,545.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against his late brother's estate for historical sexual abuse.

The estate was noted in default.

The court accepted the plaintiff's affidavit evidence and expert psychological evidence detailing the severe, long-term impacts of the abuse, including PTSD and substance use disorder.

The court awarded $275,000 in general non-pecuniary damages, $45,000 for future psychotherapy, and $25,000 in punitive damages, totaling $345,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove Michael Switzer as lawyer of record for the defendant Mario Ascani's insurer, State Farm Insurance, due to a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The conflict arose from the same law firm representing State Farm in both a tort action against Ascani and an accident benefits arbitration for the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of confidential information sharing within the firm, and that the firm was in a disqualifying conflict, ordering the removal of counsel.

The Wylie and Porsche defendants sought costs of an action and a proposed summary judgment motion after being released from a three-vehicle collision lawsuit.

The court declined to award costs to the defendants, finding their conduct unreasonable, particularly in rejecting a late but reasonable acceptance of their offer to exit without costs, and in seeking costs for a non-existent summary judgment motion.

The court also criticized the unnecessary level of moral outrage and lack of civility in pursuing the motion.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the court ruled on post-verdict issues including the statutory threshold and deductibles.

The court found the plaintiff met the threshold for permanent serious impairment due to a somatic symptom disorder.

However, the court held that the increased statutory deductibles enacted in August 2015 applied retrospectively, which reduced the jury's non-pecuniary and Family Law Act damage awards to zero.

After applying set-offs for statutory accident benefits, judgment was issued for the plaintiffs in the amount of $56,294.98.