Opinion
December 10, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.).
We also note that the record does not support defendants' contention that the court treated the settlement offer as a major factor, let alone the "sole criterion", in setting aside the verdict. Nor have defendants shown that the court merely substituted its judgment for that of the jury, or that it ignored the mandate that a jury verdict not be set aside unless it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs., 126 A.D.2d 424, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 602). While the jury was free, as defendants contend, to reject the testimony of plaintiff, and his expert, their testimony was neither inherently implausible nor rebutted by defendants.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.