Where, as here, "the jury ... concludes that a plaintiff was injured as a result of an accident, the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and constitutes a material deviation from what would be reasonable compensation" ( Zimnoch v. Bridge View Palace, LLC, 69 A.D.3d 928, 929–930, 893 N.Y.S.2d 253 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeLarkin v. Wagner, 170 A.D.3d 1145, 1148, 96 N.Y.S.3d 664 ; Ciatto v. Lieberman, 1 A.D.3d 553, 557, 769 N.Y.S.2d 48 ; Califano v. Automotive Rentals, 293 A.D.2d 436, 437, 740 N.Y.S.2d 117 ; see alsoAvissato v. McDaniel, 168 A.D.3d 653, 654, 91 N.Y.S.3d 236 ). Under the circumstances of this case, the jury's failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering and future medical expenses was not based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, and was inadequate to the extent indicated (seeRojas v. Brabant, 192 A.D.3d 934, 935, 140 N.Y.S.3d 727 ; Chung v. Shaw, 175 A.D.3d 1237, 108 N.Y.S.3d 47 ; Cicola v. County of Suffolk, 120 A.D.3d 1379, 993 N.Y.S.2d 131 ; Sanz v. MTA–Long Is. Bus, 46 A.D.3d 867, 849 N.Y.S.2d 88 ). Further, the jury's award for past pain and suffering and past medical expenses was inadequate to the extent indicated (seeLara v. Arevalo, 205 A.D.3d 700, 168 N.Y.S.3d 499 ; Chung v. Shaw, 175 A.D.3d 1237, 108 N.Y.S.3d 47 ; Coleman v. Karimov, 173 A.D.3d 669, 103 N.Y.S.3d 146 ; Rozmarin v. Sookhoo, 172 A.D.3d 1415, 102 N.Y.S.3d 67 ; Knight v. Barsch, 154 A.D.3d 834, 62 N.Y.S.3d 480 ; Eastman v. Nash, 153 A.D.3d 1323, 61 N.Y.S.3d 608 ).

Second, Plaintiff complains that the award of damages deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation for his double level cervical fusion. See, e.g., Rojas v. Brabant, 192 A.D.3d 934, 935-936 (2d Dept. 2021). However, it was Defendants' contention at trial that Plaintiffs alleged cervical injury was not causally related to the subject motor vehicle accident.