[brief] THE JURY VERDICT WAS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE THAT SHOCKS THE JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REMITTITUR  (Raised below: Da23-24, 4T)  A motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive is governed by R. 4:49-1, which permits the trial judge to grant the motion when, “having given due regard to the opportunity of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses, it clearly and convincingly appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law. ”  A verdict may only be set aside as excessive in “clear cases. ”  Jastram v. Kruse, 2007 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 629, *8.  A trial judge should not interfere with the quantum of damages assessed by a jury unless it is so disproportionate to the injury and resulting disability shown as to shock his conscience and to convince him or her that to sustain the award would be manifestly unjust.  Baxter v. Fairmont Food Co., 74 N.J. 588, 596, 379 A.2d 225 (1977).  If it clearly and convincingly appears that a damages award is so excessive that it constitutes a miscarriage of justice, then a Court is empowered to vacate a jury verdict and grant a new trial.  Johnson v. Scaccetti, 192 N.J. 256, 280 (2007); Baxter v. Fairmont Food Co., 74 N.J. 588, 596 (1977).  A trial court should order a new trial or remit a jury’s damages award when the verdict is so clearly disproportionate to the injury and its sequela that it shocks the judicial conscience.  Johnson, supra, 192 N.J. at 281; Baxter, supra, 74 N.J. at 602.  The verdict must be “wide of the mark” and pervaded by a sense of “wrongness. ”  Johnson, supra, 192 N.J. at 281; Baxter, supra, 74 N.J. at 598-99.  In other words, the trial court must be clearly and convincingly persuaded that it would be manifestly unjust to sustain the award.  Johnson, supra, 192 N.J. at 281; Baxter, supra, 74 N.J. at 604.  Here, Appellee’s damages presented, even in a light most favorable to the Appellee, compared to the verdict given of $1,600,000 is a clear shock to the judicial conscience.  As a result, a new trial is warranted.  In the alternative, remittitur is also appropriate.  Remittitur should be governed through a thorough analysis of the case itself; of the witnesses' testimony; of the nature, extent, and duration of the plaintiff's injuries; and of the impact of those injuries on the plaintiff's life will yield the best record on which to decide a remittitur motion.  Cuevas v. Wentworth Group, 226 N.J. 480, 510 (N.J. 2016).  Again, Appellee’s injuries and resulting impact on his life is disproportionate to the verdict given of $1,600,000.  Accordingly, remittitur is also appropriate.  At the trial court level, a new trial or, in the alternative, remittitur, was denied seemingly due to a great weight that was given to the severity of the accident and property damage to Appellee’s vehicle while ignoring that Appellee complained of no pain or injury at the scene of the accident and had no treatment for several months.  The trial court’s belief that the property damage photographs themselves were horrific reflects that the verdict was not so much based on the nature and extent of the injuries being claimed, but rather improperly the nature and extent of the property damage.  III.