Opinion
November 21, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention the jury's verdict is supported by sufficient evidence. The testimony of the defendant's witnesses with respect to the plaintiff's job performance reveals that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences supporting the verdict (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493; Julmis v. City of New York, 194 A.D.2d 522). Moreover, according the jurors their proper deference as the finders of the facts and as the assessors of the credibility of the witnesses (see, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129; Rubin v. Aaron, 191 A.D.2d 547, 548), we find the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. There is no indication in the record that the verdict could not have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence adduced at the trial (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, supra; Nicastro v. Park, supra).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.