Opinion
April 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
The trial court did not err in setting aside the verdict and dismissing the complaint and cross-claims as against defendant-respondent, the cleaning contractor for the premises, who had been so employed for only 32 days prior to the occurrence. There was no evidence other than speculation that it contributed to any hazardous condition with respect to the floor mat under which plaintiff's foot became lodged when she lost her balance due to a defect in the terrazzo floor.
The award of damages, in the increased amount directed by the trial court, was not excessive. We perceive no abuse of discretion in awaiting judgment on the retrial to apply the set off mandated by General Obligations Law § 15-108 (a), here limited to the $50,000 in pre-verdict settlement paid by defendant cleaning corporation.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.