Opinion
February 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Schenectady County (Doran, J.).
The relevant facts and issues pertaining to this appeal were set forth by us in our prior decision on this appeal ( 210 A.D.2d 703). By a divided Court, we reinstated the jury's verdict dismissing the claim for future pain and suffering. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals determined that the appropriate standard of our review should have been whether "`"the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [plaintiff] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence"'" ( 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, quoting Moffatt v. Moffatt, 86 A.D.2d 864, affd 62 N.Y.2d 875).
In light of the guidance provided by the Court of Appeals, our review of the record mandates an affirmance of Supreme Court's determination that a new trial must be granted to address the issue of future damages.
Mikoll, J.P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.