Plaintiff was injured during a rainstorm, when he came into contact with a downed live high voltage electrical cable owned by defendant Con Edison. The jury determined, inter alia, that Con Edison and defendant Tree Preservation Co., which was hired by Con Edison to trim tree growth around the wire, were jointly and severally liable for not properly trimming and inspecting the tree that caused the wire to fall. Upon review of the record, we find sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of negligence as against both defendants, as well as the jury's finding of comparative negligence (see, Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507). Nor is the verdict against the weight of the evidence (Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493). However, the jury's awards of $145,000 for past lost earnings covering a 7 1/2-year period, $1,000,000 for future lost earnings for a 36-year period, and $250,000 for future medical expenses deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]). Accordingly, we direct a new trial as to these elements of damage unless plaintiff stipulates to a reduction of the verdict as above indicated. There is no merit to plaintiff's contention that the trial court lacked authority to reduce the award of future damages to present value (see, Escobar v. Seatrain Lines, 175 A.D.2d 741; see also, Hudson v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 150 Misc.2d 283). We have considered the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.