The evidence does not so preponderate in favor of defendant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence ( Martin v McLaughlin, 162 AD2d 181, 184), and defendant's contentions represent nothing more than his own self-serving view of the evidence, which gives this Court no reason to disturb the trial court's denial of his motion to set aside the jury verdict ( see, Kamen v Kamen, 163 AD2d 58). We find that the award of future medical care costs was not "speculative" ( Korn v Levick, 231 AD2d 606, 607); that the verdict adequately compensates plaintiff for "future pain and suffering associated" with the relevant injury ( Martinez v Gouverneur Gardens Hous. Corp., 184 AD2d 264, 267, lv denied 80 NY2d 759); that there is evidence to support the jury's resolution of the issue of when plaintiffs cause of action accrued ( 123 AD2d 165, 172); and that there is sufficient evidence of all of the elements of constructive fraud, including injury to plaintiff ( see, Brown v Lockwood, 76 AD2d 721, 730-731). Punitive damages were justified by reason of defendant's conduct of an egregious nature ( see, Home Ins. Co. v American Home Prods. Corp., 75 NY2d 196, 203-204), and the amount awarded was not excessive. The verdict on comparative negligence was proper, as Public Health Law § 2307 should not be construed as imposing absolute liability in the absence of any expression of legislative intent to support such an interpretation ( cf., Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.