Worked example: Damages Allocation in New York

Example inputs

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Damages Allocation calculator.

This worked example shows how DocketMath’s damages-allocation calculator can help you think through how total claimed damages might be split across categories in New York (US-NY) using jurisdiction-aware rules. This is not legal advice—it’s a practical walkthrough of the calculator workflow and the kinds of assumptions you may want to document.

Scenario (what we’re allocating)

Assume a New York plaintiff is claiming damages from an injury-related dispute. You want to allocate a total claimed amount into three buckets:

• Economic damages (e.g., medical bills, lost wages)
• Non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering)
• Punitive damages (only if applicable under the facts)

Jurisdiction rule applied in this example

For New York, this example uses the general default statute of limitations (SOL) period as a starting point, based on the jurisdiction data you provided:

• General SOL Period: 5 years
• General Statute: **N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10(2)(c)
• Source: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10

Also, your note says: No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. So, in this example, we do not attempt to tailor the SOL window to a more specific claim type. Instead, we treat the 5-year general default as the rule for the time window analysis.

Inputs you would enter in DocketMath

Below are the example inputs used for a single run. Use these as a template for your own case file—especially the “days since event” and the allocation amounts.

Checkboxes help ensure you’re not skipping the core “why” behind each number:

• I have a date/event reference point to compute “days since event”
• I’m entering economic and non-economic amounts consistently with my damages theory
• I’m either including punitive damages as $0 or supporting a punitive amount with case facts
• My Total damages equals the sum of category inputs

Example run

Open the calculator here: /tools/damages-allocation.

In the run below, DocketMath applies the New York general/default 5-year SOL period logic. Because we used 1,200 days since event, the tool can interpret the time elapsed relative to a 5-year window.

Step 1: Time window check (based on the general default)

A 5-year period is approximately 1,825 days (using 365-day years for a simple day-count approach). With 1,200 days, the event is within the 5-year window.

• Days since event: 1,200
• Approx. 5-year window: ~1,825
• Result: Within the general SOL period for the default-rule setup in this example

This is consistent with the “general default” approach you specified (no claim-type-specific sub-rule found). DocketMath doesn’t try to substitute a different SOL bucket here—so the tool’s time-window effect is driven by the general 5-year assumption tied to N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10(2)(c) in the provided jurisdiction data.

Step 2: Allocate the damages into categories

Given your inputs:

• Economic damages: $120,000
• Non-economic damages: $60,000
• Punitive damages: $0

DocketMath can summarize allocation using both absolute numbers and percentages.

Allocation output (example)

Step 3: What the SOL window changes in practice

In a typical damages-allocation workflow, the SOL window may affect how much of the claimed damages is treated as timely versus potentially excluded. Because this run is within the 5-year window, the calculator output will generally retain the full category amounts (i.e., no timing-based proration).

So the practical result of this specific example is:

• No SOL-based reduction applied (because 1,200 days < ~1,825 days)
• Category totals remain: Economic $120,000 / Non-economic $60,000 / Punitive $0

Sensitivity check

Now adjust only one input—the time elapsed—so you can see how the output changes. This is the fastest way to validate whether your damages allocation story is sensitive to the SOL assumption.

To test sensitivity, change one high-impact input (like the rate, start date, or cap) and rerun the calculation. Compare the outputs side by side so you can see how small input shifts affect the result.

Sensitivity scenario: event occurred farther back

Change:

• Days since event from 1,200 to 2,400

Keep everything else the same:

• Economic: $120,000
• Non-economic: $60,000
• Punitive: $0
• Total: $180,000

Expected time-window effect under the general default rule

Compare 2,400 days to the approximate 5-year window (~1,825 days):

• 2,400 > 1,825 → outside the general 5-year period for this default setup

Output impact (example interpretation)

With an outside-the-window assumption, DocketMath’s damages-allocation workflow may reflect one of several modeling approaches (depending on how the calculator is configured):

• Timing-based exclusion: showing a reduced “timely damages” figure
• Proration: allocating only the portion deemed to fall inside the window
• Flagging: retaining amounts but marking them as potentially impacted by timeliness

Because the exact proration/exclusion mechanics depend on the calculator’s configuration and the jurisdiction-aware rule mapping, the most actionable sensitivity takeaway is:

• When you push the event date beyond the 5-year general default, the tool should indicate a timeliness impact that changes either totals, a “timely portion,” or a status flag.

Sensitivity summary (what should change)

• The timely recoverable amount (or its modeled proxy) should change due to being outside the 5-year general period tied to N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10(2)(c) per the jurisdiction data provided.

Quick checklist to make your sensitivity checks meaningful

• Change only one variable (here: days since event)
• Confirm totals still reconcile: $120,000 + $60,000 + $0 = $180,000
• Look for: (1) “timely vs. untimely” outputs, (2) reductions, (3) flags or status labels

Related reading

• Damages Allocation Guide for Alabama — Comparative Fault Rules
• Damages Allocation Guide for Alaska — Comparative Fault Rules
• Damages Allocation Guide for American Samoa — Comparative Fault Rules