| Conway v New York City Tr. Auth. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07789 [66 AD3d 948] |
| October 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Daniel Conway, Respondent, v New York City TransitAuthority, Appellant. |
—[*1] Caryl B. Rossner (Sonkin, Fifer & Gershon, New York, N.Y. [Howard Fifer], of counsel),for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgmentof the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated March 3, 2008, which, upon ajury verdict against it on the issue of liability, and finding that the plaintiff, inter alia, sustaineddamages in the principal sums of $200,000 for past pain and suffering and $800,000 for futurepain and suffering, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The 26-year-old plaintiff fractured both ankles on January 8, 2003, when he slipped on thesecond highest step on a stairway at a subway station in Woodside, Queens, and fell down thestairs. The plaintiff was transported by ambulance to a hospital, where he received emergencytreatment. In the days following the accident, he sought additional medical care from otherproviders. Approximately two weeks after the accident, the plaintiff underwent arthroscopicsurgery to repair the fractures and remove the cartilage that had separated from the bone.
Following a bifurcated trial on the issue of liability, the jury found, inter alia, that thestairway was not reasonably safe and that the defendant's failure to maintain the stairway was aproximate cause of the accident. After the trial on the issue of damages, the jury found that theplaintiff, inter alia, sustained damages in the principal sums of $200,000 for past pain andsuffering and $800,000 for future pain and suffering.
The witnesses' testimony presented issues of credibility that the jury was in the best positionto resolve, based on its opportunity to assess the witnesses (see Solon v Voziianov, 56 AD3d 654 [2008]; Fryer v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 31AD3d 604, 605 [2006]; Crockett vLong Beach Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d 606, 607 [2005]). A valid line of reasoning existedwhich could lead rational persons to the jury's conclusion that the defendant was liable for theplaintiff's injuries (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; Nicastrov Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]), and its verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of theevidence (cf. Solon v Voziianov, 56AD3d 654 [2008]; Stylianou v Calabrese, 297 AD2d 798, 799 [2002]).[*2]
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the jury's awardsfor past and future pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what would be consideredreasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Pryce v County of Suffolk, 55 AD3d 894 [2008]; Crockett v Long Beach Med. Ctr., 15AD3d 606 [2005]; Stylianou v Calabrese, 297 AD2d 798, 799 [2002]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Lott andAustin, JJ., concur.