Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof granting a new trial on the issue of damages as to the infant plaintiff Daniel Maing for future pain and suffering unless the plaintiffs stipulate to reduce the sum of $7 million awarded therefor to the sum of $2.5 million and substituting therefor a provision granting a new trial unless the plaintiffs stipulate to reduce that sum from $7 million to the sum of $4 million; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs to the plaintiffs.
The evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding that St. Vincent's departed from accepted medical practice ( see Flaherty v Fromberg, 46 AD3d 743). Moreover, the liability verdict against St. Vincent's was not contrary to the weight of the evidence ( see Speciale v Achari, 29 AD3d 674, 675; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).
The proposed reduced damages award to the plaintiff Eun Sook Maing for past and future pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation ( see CPLR 5501 [c]). However, the proposed reduced damages award to the infant plaintiff Daniel Maing for future pain and suffering deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation to the extent indicated ( see CPLR 5501 [c]).
The Supreme Court properly found that the jury's determination that the plaintiff Soo Maing was not entitled to recover damages for loss of services and consortium was contrary to the weight of the evidence ( see Langhorne v Courity of Nassau, 40 AD3d 1045, 1047).
Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving the amount of the plaintiff Eun Sook Maing's past and future lost earnings with reasonable certainty ( see Deans v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 64 AD3d 742, 744; Morgan v Rosselli, 23 AD3d 356, 357; Gomez v City of New York, 260 AD2d 598, 599).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.