CALZADO v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2003)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J. and a jury), entered on or about November 30, 2001, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a fall on a platform at the base of a set of steps leading up to an elevated subway station, apportioning liability 75% against defendant New York City Transit Authority and 25% against plaintiff, and awarding pre-apportionment, pre-structured damages of, inter alia, $100,000 and $700,000 for past and future pain and suffering, respectively, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 While plaintiff's attorney's remarks on summation seeking to fashion a conspiracy to cover up the facts surrounding plaintiff's fall were deplorable, they did not warrant a mistrial and the trial court's denial of such motion was a proper exercise of discretion.   Plaintiff's case was very strong, and we are satisfied that the net effect of counsel's improper, but largely isolated, conspiracy allusion was minimal (compare Melendez v. New York City Tr. Auth., 196 A.D.2d 460, 462, 601 N.Y.S.2d 489;  Clarke v. New York City Tr. Auth., 174 A.D.2d 268, 278, 580 N.Y.S.2d 221).

 The award of $100,000 for past pain and suffering over a two-year period for a torn anterior cruciate ligament and a torn medial meniscus does not deviate materially from reasonable compensation (cf.   Garcia v. Queens Surface Corp., 271 A.D.2d 277, 278, 707 N.Y.S.2d 53;  Myers v. Schaffer Grocery Corp., 281 A.D.2d 156, 721 N.Y.S.2d 347;  Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp., 244 A.D.2d 208, 664 N.Y.S.2d 285).   Likewise, in view of testimony that plaintiff will ultimately develop arthritis and require knee replacement surgery, the $700,000 award for future pain and suffering over a projected 32-year period is not so disproportionate to what constitutes reasonable compensation as to warrant reduction (cf.  Mujica v. State Univ. Constr. Fund, 275 A.D.2d 976, 715 N.Y.S.2d 194;  Cruz v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 259 A.D.2d 432, 687 N.Y.S.2d 350).