Opinion
July 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We find unpersuasive the plaintiffs' contention that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The individual defendant, who operated one of the vehicles involved in the accident, presented an adequate and reasonable explanation for the rear-end collision with the plaintiff's vehicle ( see, e.g., Torrillo v. Command Bus Co., 206 A.D.2d 520; Varsi v. Stoll, 161 A.D.2d 590). While the trial testimony consisted of conflicting factual accounts regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, the jury's fact-finding determination is entitled to great deference ( see, Torrillo v. Command Bus Co., supra). Upon our review of the entire record, we conclude that the verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and should not be disturbed ( see, e.g., Varsi v. Stoll, supra; see generally, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296) and, in any event, is without merit. Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.