Opinion
2013-06264
11-12-2014
Milagros HENRIQUEZ, et al., appellants, v. Maxwell ROVT, et al., respondents.
Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman, Mackauf, Bloom & Rubinowitz, New York, N.Y. (Richard M. Steigman and Timothy Wasieski of counsel), for appellants. Hannum, Feretic, Prendergast & Merlino, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. White of counsel), for respondents.
Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman, Mackauf, Bloom & Rubinowitz, New York, N.Y. (Richard M. Steigman and Timothy Wasieski of counsel), for appellants.
Hannum, Feretic, Prendergast & Merlino, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. White of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Opinion In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated April 30, 2013, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
To the extent that the plaintiffs challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review, since they failed to move pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence (see Miller v. Miller, 68 N.Y.2d 871, 873, 508 N.Y.S.2d 418, 501 N.E.2d 26 ).
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. 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, Inc., 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163 ; Crooks v. E. Peters, LLC, 103 A.D.3d 828, 960 N.Y.S.2d 165 ; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184 ). It is for the jury to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference in this regard is accorded to the jury, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see Crooks v. E. Peters, LLC, 103 A.D.3d at 828, 960 N.Y.S.2d 165 ; Lopreiato v. Scotti, 101 A.D.3d 829, 954 N.Y.S.2d 895 ; Exarhouleas v. Green 317 Madison, LLC, 46 A.D.3d 854, 855, 847 N.Y.S.2d 866 ). Based on the evidence adduced at trial, the verdict in favor of the defendants should not be disturbed.