Opinion
May 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce McM. Wright, J.).
In light of the excessive verdict which was influenced by the inflammatory remarks of plaintiff's counsel throughout the trial, the IAS Court appropriately exercised its discretion and ordered a new trial on damages unless the parties stipulated to a reduction of the verdict (see, Kupitz v Elliott, 42 A.D.2d 898). Indeed, the total award of over $2 million (the jury found the plaintiff to be 25% responsible) "deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation" (CPLR 5501 [c]). In light of, inter alia, plaintiff's age, her pre-accident cardiac condition, her previous slip and fall accident in which plaintiff sustained injuries which were not yet healed or were permanent at the time of the instant car accident, and in light of plaintiff's good recovery from this accident, the jury's award was excessive (compare, e.g., Blyskal v Kelleher, 171 A.D.2d 718).
We further note that since the IAS Court's decision reduces the verdict to a net of $450,000, the order (denominated a judgment) should so reflect that net award. (See, Rowlee v Dietrich, 88 A.D.2d 751, 752.)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.