Opinion
April 20, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The trial court properly precluded the defendant from introducing evidence of income benefits that the plaintiff was receiving in the form of a pension from the defendant and a disability pension from the Railroad Retirement Board. Such "collateral sources" of income may not be considered by a jury in evaluating or in mitigation of a party's claim for damages (see, e.g., Healy v Rennert, 9 N.Y.2d 202, 206-208; Lehr v City of New York, 16 A.D.2d 702; see also, Eichel v New York Cent. Ry. Co., 375 U.S. 253, 254-256).
In addition, we do not believe that the jury's award to the plaintiff of $60,000 for pain and suffering, $6,000 for past medical expenses, and $12,000 for future medical expenses should be set aside as excessive. They were not unreasonable in view of the evidence before the jury (see, e.g., Petosa v City of New York, 63 A.D.2d 1016). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.