Opinion
September 27, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Hickman, J.).
We reject plaintiffs' claim that the jury's award of damages for pain and suffering in this personal injury action was inadequate and contrary to the weight of the evidence. Medical testimony to the effect that the injured ankle after surgery was in "good alignment" with a "good range of motion" more than justified the jury's award. Although another jury may have appraised the damages at a higher amount, we cannot say as a matter of law that the verdict was so inadequate (see, Shapp v Simmons, 31 A.D.2d 666) as to have deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, Robert v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 161 A.D.2d 346).
Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.