Opinion
2002-05371
Argued May 16, 2003.
June 9, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated April 12, 2002, which upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.
Silbowitz, Garafola, Silbowitz Schatz (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for appellant.
Mead, Hecht, Conklin Gallagher, LLP, Mamaroneck, N.Y. (Sharon A. Scanlan and Sara Luca Salvi of counsel), for respondents.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
"`[A] jury verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside 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'" (Spencer v. City of New York, 300 A.D.2d 468, quoting Asaro v. Micali, 292 A.D.2d 552; see Grassi v. Ulrich, 87 N.Y.2d 954, 956; Lolik v. Big v. Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134). Moreover, determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are for the jury, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, and its resolution of issues of credibility should be afforded great deference (see Baldwin v. City of New York, 290 A.D.2d 465, 466; Darmetta v. Ginsburg, 256 A.D.2d 498; Buckenberger v. Clark Constr. Corp., 208 A.D.2d 790, 791). In this case, the verdict was based upon a fair interpretation of evidence.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, ADAMS and RIVERA, JJ., concur.