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; Clarke v. New York City Tr. Auth., 174 A.D.2d 268, 278).
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; Myers v. Schaffer Grocery Corp., 281 A.D.2d 156; Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp., 244 A.D.2d 208). 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;Cruz v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 259 A.D.2d 432).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.