PADILLA v. STYLE MANAGEMENT CO INC (1998)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J., and a jury), entered May 27, 1997, in favor of plaintiff in the principal amount of $239,390, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

 In this trial on the issue of damages arising out of an automobile accident, plaintiff established that she suffered a “serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law § 5102(d) by her testimony that she was confined to bed for approximately seven months after the accident, and was unable to work or to care for her child for a period of several years, which testimony was confirmed by expert testimony concerning her injuries (see, Williams v. Omera, 190 A.D.2d 618, 593 N.Y.S.2d 821;  Gleissner v. LoPresti, 135 A.D.2d 494, 521 N.Y.S.2d 735;  Kim v. Cohen, 208 A.D.2d 807, 618 N.Y.S.2d 386).   The award of $175,000 for past and future pain and suffering does not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances (cf., Robillard v. Robbins, 168 A.D.2d 803, 563 N.Y.S.2d 940, affd. 78 N.Y.2d 1105, 578 N.Y.S.2d 126, 585 N.E.2d 375;  Adams v. Romero, 227 A.D.2d 292, 642 N.Y.S.2d 673;  Brown v. Stark, 205 A.D.2d 725, 613 N.Y.S.2d 705).

 Defendants' claim of prejudice resulting from a comment by plaintiff's attorney during summation, which was not objected to by defendants, is not preserved for review (see, Reilly v. Wright, 55 A.D.2d 544, 390 N.Y.S.2d 1;  Spiselman v. Empire State Dental Group, 232 A.D.2d 296, 648 N.Y.S.2d 915, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1027, 658 N.Y.S.2d 241, 680 N.E.2d 614).   Were we to consider the argument, we would find that the isolated comment did not reflect the tenor of plaintiff's summation and would not warrant reversal (see, Schechtman v. Lappin, 161 A.D.2d 118, 121, 554 N.Y.S.2d 846).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.