Opinion
2014-01-22
Zbigniew SLIWOWSKI, et al., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent (and a third-party action).
Gregory J. Cannata & Associates, New York, N.Y. (Alison Cannata Hendele of counsel), for appellants. Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York, N.Y. (Edward J. White of counsel), for respondent.
Gregory J. Cannata & Associates, New York, N.Y. (Alison Cannata Hendele of counsel), for appellants. Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York, N.Y. (Edward J. White of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated June 13, 2012, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set a jury verdict in favor of the defendant 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 jury verdict should only be set aside as against the weight of the evidence when the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 745, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163). “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 against 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” (Garrett v. Manaser, 8 A.D.3d 616, 617, 779 N.Y.S.2d 565; see Niebles v. MTA Bus Co., 110 A.D.3d 1047, 1047, 974 N.Y.S.2d 253; Spero v. Awasthi Ltd. Partners, 106 A.D.3d 988, 989, 965 N.Y.S.2d 364).
Here, contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, they failed to demonstrate that the issues of negligence and proximate cause were so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause ( see generally Niebles v. MTA Bus Co., 110 A.D.3d at 1047, 974 N.Y.S.2d 253; Spero v. Awasthi Ltd. Partners, 106 A.D.3d at 989, 965 N.Y.S.2d 364). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions have been rendered academic by our determination, are without merit, or are not properly before this Court. MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.