Under New York law, "[a] jury finding that a party was negligent but that the negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and [contrary to] the weight of the evidence only when the issues are 'so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause.'" Cordice v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 171 A.D.3d 854, 95 N.Y.S.3d 874, 876 (2019) (citation omitted). "[W]here the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view."

"A jury's finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and [contrary to the] weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause." Cordice v. New York City Transit Authority, 171 A.D.3d 854, 95 N.Y.SJd 874 (2d Dept. 2019) quoting Zhagui v. Gilbo, 63 A.D.3d 919, 883 N.Y.S.2d 222 (2d Dept. 2009). "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... [a] jury may believe or disbelieve the testimony of a witness, or believe portions of the testimony and disbelieve others."