Our examination of the record reveals that the special verdict sheet was, on its face, "unclear and confusing so as to create an issue as [to the] precise amount the jury intended to finally award the plaintiff". (Wingate v Long Is. R.R., 92 A.D.2d 797, 798.)
While we do not disturb the apportionment of fault, which neither party places in issue, we hold that the confusing and ambiguous wording of the verdict sheet serves to confirm the trial court's conclusion that the jurors experienced substantial confusion in reaching their verdict. A new trial solely on the issue of total damages, to which the present apportionment shall be applied, is, therefore, in order. (See, Pache v Boehm, 60 A.D.2d 867.)
Concur — Sandler, J.P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.