We disagree with the trial court that the damages awarded by the jury relating to past and future pain and suffering and past lost earnings were excessive and agree with plaintiff that such awards did not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances (see, CPLR 5501 [c]; Poole v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 242 A.D.2d 966; Stedman v. Bouillon, 234 A.D.2d 876). Concerning future lost earnings, the 29-year post-trial work life applied by the jury was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and, applying a more realistic 15- year work life expectancy, as suggested by plaintiff himself on appeal, the $175,000 figure reached by the trial court is appropriate. We find no error in the court's decision to submit to the jury the issue of comparative negligence, which resulted in a finding of 15% comparative negligence against plaintiff.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.