As the question of prejudgment interest was not presented to the jury in this maritime personal injury action, the court is without authority to award it. (Pires v. Frota Oceanica Brasileira, 161 A.D.2d 129, 132; Havis v. Petroleum Helicopters, 664 F.2d 54, 55.) Even without that rule, plaintiff's failure to seek prejudgment interest in connection with the original judgment, which this court modified to reduce the award for future earnings ( 151 A.D.2d 402), would act as a waiver of any claim with respect thereto. As to whether $600,000, the amount of the earlier settlement in a related action against a nonparty joint tort-feasor, should have been deducted from the damage award, our prior determination is the law of the case. (See, Locilento v. Coleman Catholic High School, 134 A.D.2d 39, 43.) In any event, while plaintiff urges that maintenance and cure paid in exchange for a release cannot be deducted from a damage award, there is nothing in this record to suggest that the $600,000 was paid as maintenance and cure, which is "designed to provide a seaman with food and lodging when he becomes sick or injured in the ship's service" (Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 531); the $600,000 payment was made in connection with a broad general release executed in full settlement of the related action.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.