Opinion
May 31, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J.
Present — Lawton, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Second amended judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: A motion to set aside a jury verdict of no cause of action should not be granted "unless the preponderance of the evidence in favor of the moving party is so great that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence" ( Dannick v. County of Onondaga, 191 A.D.2d 963, citing Kuncio v. Millard Fillmore Hosp., 117 A.D.2d 975, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 608). If the verdict is one that reasonable persons could have rendered after receiving conflicting evidence, the trial court should not substitute its judgment for that of the jury ( see, Bolles v. County of Cattaraugus, 162 A.D.2d 975). The determination whether to set aside a jury verdict is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, but the court must be careful not to "`unnecessarily interfere with the fact-finding function of the jury to a degree that amounts to an usurpation of the jury's duty'" ( Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 133, quoting Ellis v. Hoelzel, 57 A.D.2d 968, 969). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the jury's determination that defendants were not negligent is one that could reasonably have been rendered upon the conflicting evidence adduced at trial.