ROMAN v. I. Gold Corp., d/b/a I. Gold & Sons, et al., appellants.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Irma ROMAN, respondent, v. BROOKLYN NAVY YARD DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., defendants, I. Gold Corp., d/b/a I. Gold & Sons, et al., appellants.

Decided: June 30, 2009

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., STEVEN W. FISHER, ARIEL E. BELEN, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ. Cheven, Keely & Hatzis, New York, N.Y. (Thomas Torto of counsel), for appellants. James J. McCroie, P.C., Jericho, N.Y. (Lefkowitz, Hogan & Cassell, LLP [Shaun K. Hogan] of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants I. Gold Corp., d/b/a I. Gold & Sons, Abinal Pinero, and Monroe Truck Leasing appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated November 13, 2007, which, upon remittitur from this Court limited to a new trial on the issue of damages for future medical expenses (Roman v. I. Gold Corp., 35 A.D.3d 833, 826 N.Y.S.2d 902), and upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff sustained damages for future medical expenses in the principal sum of $306,200, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them, as reduced pursuant to Insurance Law § 5104, in the principal sum of $264,938.43.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

 Before granting a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must conclude that there is “simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial” (Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145;  see Firmes v. Chase Manhattan Auto. Fin. Corp., 50 A.D.3d 18, 29, 852 N.Y.S.2d 148).   Here, there is a rational view of the evidence that supports the jury's award for future medical expenses (see Ayala v. Lindy's Dispatching, Inc., 54 A.D.3d 699, 700, 864 N.Y.S.2d 453;  White v. Kim, 29 A.D.3d 685, 814 N.Y.S.2d 876;   Martelli v. City of New York, 219 A.D.2d 586, 631 N.Y.S.2d 369).   Moreover, the jury's award for future medical expenses was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, and thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Scibelli v. Eugene G. Herman, D.M.D., P.C., 49 A.D.3d 627, 856 N.Y.S.2d 126;  Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184).

Copied to clipboard