Summary
In DePasquale, the plaintiff suffered constant pain in his neck and back as a result of an accident for a four-year period prior to verdict, and the jury determined he would suffer the same or similar pain for one year following the verdict (DePasquale, 255 AD2d at 546).
Summary of this case from Glynn v. AltobelliOpinion
November 30, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Arniotes, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Although as a general rule courts should exercise their discretionary power over damage awards sparingly ( see, Cochetti v. Gralow, 192 A.D.2d 974, 975; Shurgan v. Tedesco, 179 A.D.2d 805, 806), they are accorded considerable latitude in this regard ( see, Prunty v. YMCA of Lockport, 206 A.D.2d 911, 912). In the present case, the evidence established that the plaintiff Roy DePasquale has suffered serious and constant pain in his neck and back for the four-year period prior to the verdict, and the jury determined he would suffer the same or similar pain for a period of one year following the verdict. With regard to future pain and suffering, the jury found that his injuries were severe enough to justify a $50,000 damage award for one year. It is inconsistent, on this record, to simultaneously find that Mr. DePasquale's damages for past pain and suffering were only $20,000 for a period of four years (an average of $5,000 per year) ( see, Cochetti v. Gralow, supra; Powell v. New York City Tr. Auth., 186 A.D.2d 728). Hence, the trial court acted properly in setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering.
In light of the nature and consequences of the injuries sustained by Mr. DePasquale, the verdict, after retrial, of $100,000 for past pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation ( see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Tariq v. Miller, 240 A.D.2d 395; Armbruster v. Buffalo China, 247 A.D.2d 880; Peck v. Tired Iron Transp., 209 A.D.2d 979; Brown v. Stark, 205 A.D.2d 725; Sharrow v. Dick Corp., 204 A.D.2d 966; Orris v. West, 189 A.D.2d 866; DeSisto v. New York Cit Tr. Auth., 151 A.D.2d 639).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.