Opinion
October 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants contend that the jury's verdict awarding the plaintiff $130,000 for future pain and suffering was inconsistent with its finding that the plaintiff's injuries were of a nonpermanent nature and did not result in a significant limitation of the use of a bodily function. It is well-settled that objections to a verdict on the ground of inconsistency must be raised before the jury is discharged, at which time corrective action may be taken by resubmitting the matter to the jury (see, Barry v Manglass, 55 N.Y.2d 803, 806; Marine Midland Bank v Russo Produce Corp., 50 N.Y.2d 31; Barone v City of Mount Vernon, 170 A.D.2d 557, 558; Strauss v Huber, 161 A.D.2d 629, 630). Because the claim of inconsistency was not raised in the instant case until after the jury was discharged, the issue is not properly before this Court (see, Barry v Manglass, supra; Barone v City of Mount Vernon, supra; Strauss v Huber, supra).
The defendants also contend that the jury's award of $130,000 for future pain and suffering is excessive. The standard to be applied is whether the award "deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation" (CPLR 5501 [c]). We find that the award is not excessive. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.