Courtney v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

2007 NY Slip Op 09357 [45 AD3d 801]

November 27, 2007

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008

James G. Courtney, Jr., et al., Respondents, v PortAuthority of New York and New Jersey, Appellant.

—[*1]Milton H. Pachter, New York, N.Y. (Carlene V. McIntyre and Arnold D. Kolikoff ofcounsel), for appellant.

McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Patrick C. McCarthy of counsel), forrespondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much ofan order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), entered August 31, 2006, as, upon ajury verdict on the issue of liability finding it 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, anda jury verdict on the issue of damages finding that the plaintiff James G. Courtney, Jr., sustaineddamages in the sums of $1,000,000 for past pain and suffering and $400,000 for future pain andsuffering and that the plaintiff Angela Courtney sustained damages in the sum of $100,000 forloss of services, denied those branches of its motion which were pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) toset aside the verdict on the issue of liability and for judgment in its favor as a matter of law or, inthe alternative, to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages as excessive.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deletingthe provision thereof denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was to set aside theverdict on the issue of damages as excessive, and substituting therefor provisions granting thatbranch of the motion, and granting a new trial on the issue of damages only; as so modified, theorder is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, unless within 30 days after service uponthe plaintiffs of a copy of this decision and order, the plaintiffs shall serve and file in the office ofthe Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce theverdict [*2]as to damages for past pain and suffering with respectto the plaintiff James G. Courtney, Jr., from the sum of $1,000,000 to the sum of $750,000, andfor future pain and suffering with respect to the plaintiff James G. Courtney, Jr., from the sum of$400,000 to the sum of $300,000, and to the entry of a judgment accordingly; in the event thatthe plaintiffs so stipulate, then the order, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costsor disbursements.

For a court to conclude that a jury verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence,there must be no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly leadrational persons to the conclusions reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented attrial (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; Nicastro v Park,113 AD2d 129, 132 [1985]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the jury rationally couldhave concluded, under the circumstances presented in this case, that the defendant had notice ofthe condition which caused the plaintiff James G. Courtney, Jr., to slip and fall (see Erikson v J.I.B. Realty Corp., 12AD3d 344, 345-346 [2004]; David v New York City Hous. Auth., 284 AD2d 169,170-171 [2001]).

The amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs for personal injuries and loss ofservices is a question for the jury, and its determination will not be disturbed unless the awarddeviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c];Tyberg v Tomasino, 19 AD3d405 [2005]; Pellegrino v Felici, 278 AD2d 212, 213 [2000]; Walsh v Kings PlazaReplacement Serv., 239 AD2d 408, 409 [1997]). In this case, the amount of damagesawarded deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation to the extentindicated herein.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Fisher, Carni andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.