Opinion
April 1, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Barone, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff contends that the jury's failure to award him damages for future pain and suffering is inconsistent with its award of damages for past pain and suffering. This issue was not raised before the trial court discharged the jury. As a result, the trial court had no opportunity to address it or to take any corrective action. Accordingly, it is not preserved for appellate review ( see, Barry v. Manglass, 55 N.Y.2d 803; Duran v. Heller, 203 A.D.2d 414; Strauss v. Huber, 161 A.D.2d 629; Aurilia v. Greco, 186 A.D.2d 773).
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the issue of damages. The jury's verdict is not irrational ( see, Land v. City of New York, 177 A.D.2d 477; O'Boyle v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 78 A.D.2d 431; see also, Casey v Slattery, 213 A.D.2d 890), nor deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation ( see, CPLR 5501 [c]; cf., Behar v Ordover, 105 A.D.2d 766).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, academic, or without merit. Miller, J.P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.