| De La Cruz v New York City Tr. Auth. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01296 [48 AD3d 508] |
| February 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Carmen De La Cruz, Respondent, v New York City TransitAuthority et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Kramer & Pollack, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Joshua D. Pollack of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgmentof the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered July 26, 2006, which, upon a juryverdict on the issue of liability finding that they were at fault in the happening of the accident andthat the plaintiff was negligent but that her negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident,and a jury verdict on the issue of damages awarding the plaintiff, inter alia, the sums of$2,500,000 for past pain and suffering and $12,500,000 for future pain and suffering, and uponan order of the same court entered March 27, 2006, granting their motion to set aside the verdictpursuant to CPLR 4404 only to the extent of directing a new trial on the issue of damages forpast and future pain and suffering unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict as to thosedamages from the sums of $2,500,000 and $12,500,000 to the sums of $1,000,000 and$2,000,000, respectively, and upon the plaintiff's stipulation to so reduce the damages dated May10, 2006, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them, pursuant to CPLR article 50-B, in the totalsum of $4,042,369.31.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff pedestrian was crossing at the intersection of Myrtle Avenue and PutnamAvenue in Queens, when she was struck by a bus that was making a left turn onto PutnamAvenue. The plaintiff testified at the trial on the issue of liability that she was walking within thecrosswalk and had reached its midpoint when she was struck by the bus, which had approachedthe intersection from behind her. The defendant bus driver Theresa McDowell testified that shedid not see the plaintiff until after the bus struck her. Contrary to the defendants' contention, thejury's findings [*2]that the plaintiff was negligent but that hernegligence was not the proximate cause of the accident were not inconsistent as a matter of law.It is well settled that " '[w]here the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of theevidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view' "(Maze v DiBartolo, 130 AD2d 720, 720-721 [1987], quoting Koopersmith v GeneralMotors Corp., 63 AD2d 1013, 1014 [1978]). Here, the jury reasonably could have found that,although the plaintiff was negligent in failing to observe the turning bus, only the defendants'negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (see Lemberger v City of NewYork, 211 AD2d 622, 623 [1995]); Maze v DiBartolo, 130 AD2d at 721).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that damages shouldbe reduced from the sums of $2,500,000 for past pain and suffering and $12,500,000 for futurepain and suffering to the sums of $1,000,000 and $2,000,000, respectively (compare VanNess v New York City Tr. Auth., 288 AD2d 374, 375-376 [2001], Lemberger v City ofNew York, 211 AD2d 622, 623 [1995], and Rivera v City of New York, 160 AD2d985 [1990], with Davis v City of New York, 293 AD2d 641, 642-643 [2002], andChung v New York City Tr. Auth., 213 AD2d 619, 619-621 [1995]). Lifson, J.P., Ritter,Angiolillo and Carni, JJ., concur.