Opinion
2001-02984
Argued May 10, 2002
August 12, 2002
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), entered March 14, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages awarding the plaintiff $250,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.
Kramer DeVries, New York, N.Y. (Lenore Kramer and Keith DeVries of counsel), for respondent.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Paul L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, with costs, and a new trial is granted on the issue of damages only, unless within 30 days after the service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, the plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, a written stipulation consenting to decrease the verdict as to damages for past pain and suffering from the sum of $250,000 to the sum of $150,000, and future pain and suffering from the sum of $300,000 to the sum of $200,000; in the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of its motion which was to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a). The jury could have reached its determination on a fair interpretation of the evidence presented with consideration given to the credibility of the witnesses and the drawing of reasonable inferences therefrom (see Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493); Pomaro v. McKeon, 228 A.D.2d 572; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).
The amount of damages awarded by the jury deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation to the extent indicated herein (see CPLR 5501[c]; Zavurov v. City of New York, 241 A.D.2d 491).
S. MILLER, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.