The Government also distinguished other cases cited by Plaintiff as comparable that did not discuss the pain management for the decedents there (Docket No. 216, Gov't Response at 7-8, 9 (distinguishing Mancuso v. Kaleida Health, 172 A.D.3d 1931, 100 N.Y.S.3d 469 (4th Dep't), aff'd, 34 N.Y.3d 1020, 114 N.Y.S.3d 502 (2019); Nelson v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 237 A.D.2d 189, 654 N.Y.S.2d 378 (1st Dep't 1989); Kogan v. Dreifuss, 174 A.D.2d 607, 571 N.Y.S.2d 314 (2d Dep't 1991)); but cf. Docket No. 200, Pl. Proposed Conclusions of Law ¶¶ 158-61, 173, 177). Mancuso only has a result that is pertinent to this case.

Decided March 31, 1998 Appeal from (1st Dept: 237 A.D.2d 189) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR DENIED

However, upon reentering the room after the nurse had left it, they observed that the base of the telephone was on the table next to the patient/'s bed. The record presents issues of fact as to whether defendant knew or should have known that the patient/prisoner could use a telephone to harm himself or others and therefore that it should not give him access to such an object (see Nelson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 237 A.D.2d 189 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 810 [1998]; McCreary v St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 80 A.D.3d 499 [1st Dept 2011]; see generally Royston v Long Is. Med. Ctr., Inc., 81 A.D.3d 806 [2d Dept 2011]). Issues of fact also exist as to whether defendant reassumed custody and control of the patient/prisoner when its nurse asked plaintiffs to uncuff one of his hands and leave her alone with him (cf. Zerba v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 5 A.D.3d 679, 680 [2d Dept 2004]).

However, upon reentering the room after the nurse had left it, they observed that the base of the telephone was on the table next to the patient/'s bed. The record presents issues of fact as to whether defendant knew or should have known that the patient/prisoner could use a telephone to harm himself or others and therefore that it should not give him access to such an object (see Nelson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 237 AD2d 189 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 810 [1998]; McCreary v St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 80 AD3d 499 [1st Dept 2011]; see generally Royston v Long Is. Med. Ctr., Inc., 81 AD3d 806 [2d Dept 2011]). Issues of fact also exist as to whether defendant reassumed custody and control of the patient/prisoner when its nurse asked plaintiffs to uncuff one of his hands and leave her alone with him (cf. Zerba vNew York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 5 AD3d 679, 680 [2d Dept 2004]).

Other verdicts in the two million dollar range were upheld. (See, Nelson v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 237 A.D.2d 189[1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 810 [verdict of $2,000,000, reduced by thirty percent for deceased plaintiffs comparative negligence, upheld. Plaintiff sustained burns resulting in "conscious suffering" for two and one-half weeks before death]; Place v. Federal Pacific Elec. Co., 241 A.D.2d 317 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 812, N.Y. Jury Verdict Reporter, Vol. XIII, Issue 46, Case 2 [While court reduced award for past and future lost earnings, the past and future pain and suffering awards for $1,500,000 and $745,000,* respectively were not reduced, although it is not clear that they were challenged.

Other verdicts in the two million dollar range were upheld. (See, Nelson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 237 AD2d 189 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 810 [1998] [verdict of $2,000,000, reduced by 30% for deceased plaintiff's comparative negligence, upheld; plaintiff sustained burns resulting in "conscious suffering" for 2½ weeks before death]; Place v Federal Pac. Elec. Co., 241 AD2d 317 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 812, 13 NY Jury Verdict Rep issue 46, case 2 [while court reduced award for past and future lost earnings, the past and future pain and suffering awards for $1,500,000 and $745,000, respectively, were not reduced, although it is not clear that they were challenged; plaintiff electrician suffered third degree burns to his upper body and torso, was confined in the hospital for one month and underwent multiple skin grafts, and had contractures resulting in a 60% loss of range of motion].)[4] While considering the awards rendered in other cases, the court must also consider the unique facts of this case. It is undisputed that plaintiff sustained second and third degree burns to at