The lost earnings awards must be vacated to the extent indicated. Contrary to defendants' claims, there was no need for plaintiffs to mitigate damages because the testimony of medical and vocational witnesses demonstrated that plaintiffs' injuries were permanent, rendering them unemployable ( see Williams v Turner Constr., 2 AD3d 217, 217; Djelosaj v Gaines Serv. Leasing Corp., 237 AD2d 223, 224). Kruzynski's claim for lost wages is not barred by the Court of Appeals' decision in Balbuena v IDR Realty LLC ( 6 NY3d 338 ), a case relied on by defendants both in the trial court and on appeal.
While 5501(c) review has of course been used as a control on "runaway juries" (see, e.g., Small v. NYCTA, 225 A.D.2d 471; Kirschhoffer v. Van Dyke, 173 A.D.2d 7; Merrill v. Albany Medical Center Hospital, 126 A.D.2d 66, appeal dismissed 71 N.Y.2d 990), the vast bulk of decisions have involved fractional reductions as a by-product of greater scrutiny in a legislatively-mandated attempt to keep compensation reasonable and uniform (see, e.g. Djelosaj v. Gaines Service Leasing, 237 A.D.2d 223; Pfeifer v. Musiker, 280 A.D.2d 266, 720 N.Y.S.2d 121;Hull v. Bd of Education, 226 A.D.2d 318, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 814; Cagney v. Blaikie, 219 A.D.2d 483). With explanation wanting, the dissent effectively repudiates the legislatively mandated method of analysis as well as more than a decade of Appellate Division decisions which have routinely used case comparison analysis.