Plaintiff McGorry was injured when he slipped and fell on a wet and sticky floor as he left a bar area at Madison Square Garden. Although an issue of comparative negligence was plainly presented, we find, based on our review of the trial record, that the jury's apportionment of 80% of fault against plaintiff was against the weight of the evidence. We therefore remand for a new trial on the issue of comparative negligence, unless defendant stipulates to a reapportionment of fault as indicated. Whether or not defendant so stipulates, a new trial is required on the issue of past loss of earnings, since the record offers no support, as a matter of law, for the finding that plaintiff McGorry suffered no past loss of earnings as a result of his injuries. In this regard, we note that even defendant's economic expert concluded that plaintiff McGorry had experienced a substantial loss of income during his recovery period.
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.