Opinion
2012-09-12
Daniel FLYNN, et al., appellants, v. ELRAC, INC., et al., respondents.
Paul Ajlouny & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Neil Flynn of counsel), for appellants. Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Michael F. Ingham of counsel), for respondents.
Paul Ajlouny & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Neil Flynn of counsel), for appellants. Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Michael F. Ingham of counsel), for respondents.
*583In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), entered May 20, 2011, which denied their motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law, or, alternatively, to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR ... 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party” ( Tapia v. Dattco, Inc., 32 A.D.3d 842, 844, 821 N.Y.S.2d 124;see Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d 553, 556, 664 N.Y.S.2d 252, 686 N.E.2d 1346). “In considering such a motion, ‘the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant’ ” ( Hand v. Field, 15 A.D.3d 542, 543, 790 N.Y.S.2d 681, quoting Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d at 556, 664 N.Y.S.2d 252, 686 N.E.2d 1346;see Leonard v. New York City Tr. Auth., 90 A.D.3d 858, 859, 934 N.Y.S.2d 721). Here, contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the evidence presented at trial provided a rational basis upon which the jury could have found that the defendant driver was not negligent in the operation of his vehicle ( see Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 N.Y.2d at 556, 664 N.Y.S.2d 252, 686 N.E.2d 1346;Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145;Leonard v. New York City Tr. Auth., 90 A.D.3d at 859, 934 N.Y.S.2d 721).
Furthermore, “[a] jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence” ( DeSalvo v. Kreynin, 95 A.D.3d 819, 819, 942 N.Y.S.2d 890;see Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163;Young Hee Lee v. Inspa World, 90 A.D.3d 915, 934 N.Y.S.2d 817). “ ‘Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors' ” ( Vasquez v. County of Nassau, 91 A.D.3d 855, 857, 938 N.Y.S.2d 109, quoting Fekry v. New York City Tr. Auth., 75 A.D.3d 616, 617, 906 N.Y.S.2d 297;see Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d at 498–499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145). We accord deference to the credibility determinations of the jury as factfinder, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses ( see Vasquez v. County of Nassau, 91 A.D.3d at 857, 938 N.Y.S.2d 109;Exarhouleas v. Green 317 Madison, LLC, 46 A.D.3d 854, 855, 847 N.Y.S.2d 866). Applying these principles to the facts of this case, the jury's determination that the defendant driver was not negligent was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Young Hee Lee v. Inspa World, 90 A.D.3d at 916, 934 N.Y.S.2d 817).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, or, alternatively, to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial.
*584The plaintiffs' remaining contention is not properly before this Court.