The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to review questions of fact is severely curtailed by the New York State Constitution (art. 6, § 3[a]), and the court’s primary role is its law-making function, to unify, clarify and pronounce the law for the state of New York. The correction of errors by the courts below in a particular case is a secondary function, though no less important to the litigants. The Court of Appeals is only likely to get involved in reviewing a personal injury award where a pure question of law is involved, such as whether the jury was properly instructed as to the factors it may consider in arriving at its award (Bryant v. New York City Health & Hospitals, 93 NY2d 592, 598 [1999]), or whether there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial,” as in Shubbuck v Conners, 15 NY3d 871, 872 (2010).

On the other hand, the Appellate Division is expressly granted power to “review questions of law and of fact” on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court and to determine “that an award [of damages] is excessive or inadequate if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation.” Modifying an order or judgment on the ground that the award is excessive or inadequate involves the court’s error-correction function and the court should provide a sufficient factual recitation to show the basis for its decision. This will not only let the parties know that the decision was reached with full awareness of all the relevant facts, but it will enable the decision to be a guide for future cases as to what may be deemed reasonable compensation for the type of injury involved. Unfortunately, too few decisions contain a sufficient statement of the relevant facts pertaining to the plaintiff’s injuries.