Case Name: John Adams, Jr., an Infant, by His Mother and Legal Guardian, Nancy Morales-Adams, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. Edwin Heath, Jr., et al., Respondents-Appellants, First Fidelity Leasing Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, and First Union Auto Finance LLC, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2006-02-02
Citations: 26 A.D.3d 157
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Adams, Jr., an Infant, by His Mother and Legal Guardian, Nancy Morales-Adams, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Edwin Heath, Jr., et al., Respondents-Appellants, First Fidelity Leasing Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, and First Union Auto Finance LLC, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 157–157

Head Matter:
John Adams, Jr., an Infant, by His Mother and Legal Guardian, Nancy Morales-Adams, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Edwin Heath, Jr., et al., Respondents-Appellants, First Fidelity Leasing Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, and First Union Auto Finance LLC, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)
[807 NYS2d 567]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered January 12, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents-appellants' post-trial motion to the extent of vacating the jury verdict insofar as it awarded the infant plaintiff $100,000 for past pain and suffering, directed a new trial on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering unless the infant plaintiff accepted a reduced award of $25,000, otherwise denied defendants-respondents-appellants' motion, and denied the infant plaintiffs cross motion for a new trial on the issue of damages for future pain and suffering, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the award of $100,000 for the infant plaintiffs essentially cosmetic injury materially deviated from what would be reasonable compensation, and therefore appropriately directed a new trial on the issue of damages unless the infant plaintiff stipulated to a reduced award of $25,000 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). We have considered the parties' other requests for affirmative relief on the appeal and cross appeal, and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.