Opinion
2002-05856
Submitted October 2, 2003.
November 3, 2003.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered December 14, 2001, as upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant Jeffrey Lucas and against her, dismissed the complaint.
K.C. Okoli, New York, N.Y. and Rudy Brown, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant (one brief filed).
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for respondent.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff's contention that the verdict in favor of the defendant Jeffrey Lucas was not based on legally sufficient evidence is without merit, as the evidence presented at the trial provided a rational basis for the jury determination ( see Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499; Miller v. Long Is. R. R., 286 A.D.2d 713, 714; Altman v. Alpha Obstetrics Gynecology, 255 A.D.2d 276, 277). In addition, the plaintiff's contention that the verdict was inconsistent is unpreserved for appellate review because she failed to object on that ground prior to the release of the jurors ( see Barry v. Manglass, 55 N.Y.2d 803, 806; Delacruz v. Galaxy Elec., 300 A.D.2d 278; Miller v. Long Is. R. R., supra). In any event, the claim of inconsistency is without merit because the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence ( see Miglino v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 451; Rubin v. Pecoraro, 141 A.D.2d 525, 526). Finally, the verdict in favor of the defendant Lucas is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 134).
SMITH, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.