ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provisions thereof awarding damages on the plaintiff's causes of action to recover damages for past and future pain and suffering, and substituting therefor a provision severing those causes of action and granting a new trial with respect thereto; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the appellants Long Island Rail Road and Joseph Miller, unless within 30 days after the service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, the plaintiff shall file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages for past pain and suffering from $4,000,000 to $1,300,000, and for future pain and suffering from $6,000,000 to $1,950,000; in the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment.
The third-party defendant Gary Nobile's contention that the verdict against him was not based on legally sufficient evidence is without merit, as the evidence presented at trial provided a rational basis for the jury determination (see, Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49-50; Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499; Altman v. Alpha Obstetrics and Gynecology, 255 A.D.2d 276, 277). Nobile's contention that the verdicts against him and the other third-party defendant were inconsistent is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to object on that ground before the jury was released (see, Kraus v. Rotem, 249 A.D.2d 371). In any event, the contention is without merit, as the verdicts can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence (see, Miglino v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 451; Rubin v. Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d 525, 526). The verdicts against Nobile and the defendant third-party plaintiff Long Island Rail Road are also supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Voiclis v. Intl. Assn. of Machinist and Aerospace Workers, 239 A.D.2d 339; Corcoran v. People's Ambulette Serv., 237 A.D.2d 402, 403; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134).
The damages awarded for past and future pain and suffering deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation to the extent indicated (see, CPLR 5501[c]).