The trial court's decision to grant a new trial constituted a provident exercise of its discretion (see, Yalkut v. City of New York, 162 A.D.2d 185, 188; Annunziata v. Colasanti, 126 A.D.2d 75, 80). Given the ample and virtually uncontroverted evidence adduced by plaintiff with respect to damages, the jury's low award for past pain and suffering and the failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering could not have been premised upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see,Silver v. Tops Mkts., 273 A.D.2d 887). The damages amounts specified by the trial court do not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under these circumstances (see, CPLR 5501[c]). Even if the issue of lost past wages were properly raised on this appeal, we would find no reason to disturb that award.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.