Opinion
April 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The trial court properly set the verdict aside and ordered a new trial on the issues of liability and damages. The verdict awarding the plaintiff $6,000,000 for future pain and suffering and nothing for approximately 11 years of past pain and suffering is irreconcilably inconsistent, and there is a strong likelihood that the verdict was an impermissible compromise based on sympathy for the plaintiff. Since liability was established, an award of nothing for past pain and suffering is inadequate for the concededly serious injuries that the plaintiff suffered. Moreover, if no liability had been established, then the awards of damages for future pain and suffering and for past medical expenses are unwarranted ( see, Patrick v. New York Bus Serv., 189 A.D.2d 611, 612; Sheffield v. New York City Hous. Auth., 200 A.D.2d 369; Cochetti v. Gralow, 192 A.D.2d 974).
Given the need for a new trial, it is unnecessary for us to reach the issue of the inadequacy or excessiveness of the damages in this case.
We have examined the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.