politics
Building owner seeks to overturn $35 million verdict with new surveillance video
Lawyers for a Madison Avenue building filed a motion to set aside a $35.2 million jury award after nine months of video surveillance showed the plaintiff performing daily activities.
Jul 9, 3:13 PM·1m read1 source
New York PostAudio version
Tap play to generate a narrated version.
Developing·Limited corroboration so far. This page will refresh as more sources emerge.
Lawyers for the owner of a Madison Avenue building filed a motion to vacate a $35.2 million verdict after nine months of post-trial surveillance video captured the plaintiff engaging in activities that the filing says contradict her trial testimony.
The motion states that the footage shows the former JPMorgan analyst working 10-hour shifts at a gelato shop in Naples, Florida, operating a three-wheeled bike without a helmet, grocery shopping, and pushing a large gelato cart into a van after a three-hour solo event.
Surveillance footage details The filing claims one video shows the plaintiff working under fluorescent lighting in a stockroom at night, which the motion says conflicts with her testimony that such lighting exhausted her and required a nap. It also states that investigators observed her running the gelato business without assistance, contrary to her trial testimony that she had a team of underlings to perform virtually every task.
Plaintiff's response The plaintiff's lawyer called the motion "utter desperation" and said some of her limitations were not constant conditions. He stated that the plaintiff walked to court every day without assistance during the trial and that she is trying to support herself by operating the business.
Background of the case A Manhattan Supreme Court jury in March 2024 found the building owner negligent after a 7½-foot lobby door shattered in 2015 as the then-27-year-old plaintiff walked through it following a physical therapy appointment. The plaintiff testified that the incident caused permanent brain damage that led to her firing from JPMorgan and impaired her ability to perform everyday tasks.
The motion also claims the plaintiff gave conflicting accounts under oath about the reason for her termination from the bank, citing a separate federal arbitration proceeding. The plaintiff's lawyer denied any inconsistency and said the jury award did not include compensation for future earnings.
