Opinion
October 6, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.
While a jury verdict should not be set aside unless it is not supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence, the decision of a trial court to do so is entitled to great respect ( see, Tunnell v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 186 A.D.2d 643). Once the jury discredited the sole explanation of the defendant James Puleo for the subject automobile accident, that an unidentified white vehicle had struck his vehicle forcing him off of the road, the only reasonable conclusion was that James Puleo had been negligent. The trial court therefore properly exercised its discretion in setting aside that portion of the jury's verdict which found that James Puleo had not been negligent and granting judgment as a matter of law to the plaintiff on the issue of liability. Thompson, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.