Opinion
2012-12-27
Gualbert ALVAREZ, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. BETH ABRAHAM HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Katherine Herr Solomon of counsel), for appellants. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for respondent.
Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Katherine Herr Solomon of counsel), for appellants. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for respondent.
*873Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered September 28, 2011, upon a jury verdict, awarding plaintiff damages in the amount of $500,000 for past pain and suffering and $250,000 for future pain and suffering over 42 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants failed to preserve their argument that the jury's verdict was inconsistent as to liability and culpable conduct, as they failed to raise the argument before the jury was discharged ( see Barry v. Manglass, 55 N.Y.2d 803, 806, 447 N.Y.S.2d 423, 432 N.E.2d 125 [1981];Arrieta v. Shams Waterproofing, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 495, 496, 908 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1st Dept. 2010] ). In any event, the jury's verdict was consistent and can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence ( see Martinez v. New York City Tr. Auth., 41 A.D.3d 174, 175, 838 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Further, the court's interrogatory regarding “the skin care provided to the plaintiff” was unambiguous and consistent with the charge, evidence and applicable law ( compare Plunkett v. Emergency Med. Serv. of N.Y. City, 234 A.D.2d 162, 163, 651 N.Y.S.2d 462 [1st Dept. 1996],with Rodriguez v. Budget Rent–A–Car Sys., Inc., 44 A.D.3d 216, 223, 841 N.Y.S.2d 486 [1st Dept. 2007] ).
We find the jury's award for past pain and suffering appropriate. Given plaintiff's relatively young age, and in light of the evidence that his ulcer may reopen in the future, we decline to disturb the jury's award for future pain and suffering.