Opinion
Argued April 5, 1999
June 14, 1999
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated April 6, 1998, which denied their motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the defendant pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), and for leave to reargue the court's prior decision to not charge General Municipal Law § 205-e to the jury.
Dienst Serrins, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Christopher L. Salley and Dallin M. Fuchs of counsel), for appellants.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and Ellen B. Fishman of counsel), for respondent.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for reargument is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument of a decision ( see, Stockfield v. Stockfield, 131 A.D.2d 834; DeFalco v. JRS Confectionary, 118 A.D.2d 752); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is otherwise affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiffs' contention that the jury verdict should be set aside as inconsistent is unpreserved for appellate review because the issue was not raised before the jury was discharged ( see, Barry v. Manglass, 55 N.Y.2d 803, 806; Kraus v. Rotem, 249 A.D.2d 371). In any event, we find no inconsistency in the jury verdict ( see, Briccio v. Disbrow, 212 A.D.2d 565; Moskowitz v. Israel, 209 A.D.2d 676).
The Supreme Court properly denied that portion of the motion which sought to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The jury verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence presented at trial ( see, Galimberti v. Carrier Indus., 222 A.D.2d 649; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).