Opinion
2013-12-18
Christopher DiGIACOMO, appellant, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, et al., respondents.
Reisman, Rubeo & McClure, LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Christopher W. McClure of counsel), for appellant. Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (James Castro–Blanco and Thomas G. Gardiner of counsel), for respondents.
Reisman, Rubeo & McClure, LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Christopher W. McClure of counsel), for appellant. Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (James Castro–Blanco and Thomas G. Gardiner of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Liebowitz, J.), entered December 19, 2011, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages finding that the plaintiff did not sustain an injury as a result of the subject accident, and upon the denial of his oral application pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial on the issue of damages, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163; Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184). Where, as here, conflicting expert testimony is presented, the jury is entitled to accept one expert's opinion, and reject that of another expert ( see Liounis v. New York City Tr. Auth., 92 A.D.3d 643, 938 N.Y.S.2d 176; Morales v. Interfaith Med. Ctr., 71 A.D.3d 648, 650, 896 N.Y.S.2d 394). Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury's finding that the plaintiff did not sustain an injury as a result of the subject accident.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, COHEN and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.