| Romain v Grant |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01971 [60 AD3d 838] |
| March 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Daryl Romain, Respondent, v Jennette Grant,Appellant. |
—[*1] Anthony M. Grisanti, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much ofa judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered April 28, 2008, as, after anonjury trial on the issue of damages, and upon awarding the plaintiff, inter alia, the principalsum of $25,000 for past pain and suffering, directed that prejudgment interest on that sum runfrom August 26, 1998.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, andthe matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the entry of an amendedjudgment directing that prejudgment interest on the $25,000 award for past pain and sufferingrun from January 23, 2008.
The Supreme Court erred in directing that prejudgment interest on the plaintiff's $25,000award for past pain and suffering run from August 26, 1998, the date of the subject accident (see Diane v Ricale Taxi, Inc., 26AD3d 232, 233 [2006]). Rather, the court should have directed that such interest run fromJanuary 23, 2008, the date that it granted the plaintiff's unopposed application for a directedverdict on the issue of liability (see CPLR 5002; Love v State of New York, 78NY2d 540 [1991]; Van Nostrand vFroehlich, 44 AD3d 54, 56-58 [2007]; Diane v Ricale Taxi, Inc., 26 AD3d 232, 233 [2006]).
Even assuming, as the plaintiff contends, that the defendant failed to raise the foregoingissue before the Supreme Court, we nevertheless may reach it since it is an issue of law thatappears on [*2]the face of the record which, had it been broughtto the attention of the Supreme Court, could not have been avoided (see Matter of 200 Cent. Ave., LLC v Boardof Assessors, 56 AD3d 679 [2008]; Buywise Holding, LLC v Harris, 31 AD3d 681, 682 [2006];Beepat v James, 303 AD2d 345, 346 [2003]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, Ritter andSantucci, JJ., concur.