Opinion
2014-07-9
Suhails ABUZEED, appellant, v. MILE SQUARE TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., respondents.
Scott Baron & Associates, P.C., Howard Beach, N.Y. (Scott J. Baron and John Burnett of counsel), for appellant. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Nicholas P. Hurzeler and Gregory S. Katz of counsel), for respondents.
Scott Baron & Associates, P.C., Howard Beach, N.Y. (Scott J. Baron and John Burnett of counsel), for appellant. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Nicholas P. Hurzeler and Gregory S. Katz 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 (Tolbert, J.), entered November 13, 2012, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. “A jury verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the evidence preponderates so heavily in the plaintiff's favor that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” ( Lopreiato v. Scotti, 101 A.D.3d 829, 954 N.Y.S.2d 895;see Das v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 98 A.D.3d 712, 950 N.Y.S.2d 396;Coma v. City of New York, 97 A.D.3d 715, 949 N.Y.S.2d 98;Bonny v. Pierre, 91 A.D.3d 694, 936 N.Y.S.2d 895;Semel v. Guzman, 84 A.D.3d 1054, 924 N.Y.S.2d 414). “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” ( Lopreiato v. Scotti, 101 A.D.3d at 830, 954 N.Y.S.2d 895;see Verizon N.Y., Inc. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., 100 A.D.3d 983, 954 N.Y.S.2d 641;Vaccarino v. Mad Den, Inc., 100 A.D.3d 867, 955 N.Y.S.2d 122;Jean–Louis v. City of New York, 86 A.D.3d 628, 928 N.Y.S.2d 310). Based on the evidence adduced at trial, the verdict in favor of the defendants should not be disturbed.
The plaintiff's current contentions regarding the trial court's charge to the jury with respect to PJI 2:80 are unpreserved for appellate review since the plaintiff never objected to the trial court's jury charge on the grounds now argued ( see Schlesinger v. City of New York, 30 A.D.3d 400, 818 N.Y.S.2d 116;34–35 Corp. v. Industry City Assoc., 14 A.D.3d 550, 787 N.Y.S.2d 670;Rockowitz v. Greenstein, 11 A.D.3d 523, 782 N.Y.S.2d 795). BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, LaSALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.