SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
June 30, 2009
IRMA ROMAN, RESPONDENT,
BROOKLYN NAVY YARD DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, I. GOLD CORP., D/B/A I. GOLD & SONS, ET AL., APPELLANTS.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants I. Gold Corp., d/b/a I. Gold & Sons, Abinal Pinero, and Monroe Truck Leasing appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated November 13, 2007, which, upon remittitur from this Court limited to a new trial on the issue of damages for future medical expenses (Roman v I. Gold Corp., 35 AD3d 833), and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained damages for future medical expenses in the principal sum of $306,200, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them, as reduced pursuant to Insurance Law § 5104, in the principal sum of $264,938.43.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., STEVEN W. FISHER, ARIEL E. BELEN and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
(Index No. 30531/00)
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Before granting a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must conclude that there is "simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial" (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; see Firmes v Chase Manhattan Auto. Fin. Corp., 50 AD3d 18, 29). Here, there is a rational view of the evidence that supports the jury's award for future medical expenses (see Ayala v Lindy's Dispatching, Inc., 54 AD3d 699, 700; White v Kim, 29 AD3d 685; Martelli v City of New York, 219 AD2d 586). Moreover, the jury's award for future medical expenses was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, and thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Scibelli v Eugene G. Herman, O.M.O., P.C., 49 AD3d 627; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134).
SKELOS, J.P., FISHER, BELEN and LOTT, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.