Robert Schultz, Respondent v. Harrison Radiator Division General Motors Corporation, Appellant. (And a Third-Party…

Summary

The Court held that CPLR 5041(e) does not bar expert testimony on inflation and that the statutory 4% adjustment is not an exclusive inflation measure, so no double recovery occurs. It also affirmed the structured‑payment adjustment but reversed the jury instruction on loss of household services, requiring compensation only for services reasonably certain to be incurred.