Opinion
CA 01-02603
October 1, 2002.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County (Fricano, J.), entered October 3, 2001, upon a jury verdict rendered in favor of defendants.
MUSCATO, DI MILLO VONA, L.L.P., LOCKPORT (A. ANGELO DI MILLO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
HAGELIN BISCHOF, LLC, BUFFALO (ANTHONY J. TANTILLO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, AND BURNS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
We reject plaintiff's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746; Saggese v. Madison Mut. Ins. Co., 294 A.D.2d 900). Plaintiff's version of the accident conflicted with that testified to by defendant Dorene A. Manchester and defendants' expert in accident reconstruction, and the jury was entitled to resolve issues of credibility against plaintiff ( see Anaya v. County of Erie, 288 A.D.2d 945, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 611; Accurso v. Forest City Enters., 273 A.D.2d 820, 820-821). Plaintiff's further contention that the cumulative effect of improper comments by defendants' attorney warrants reversal is not preserved for our review. Plaintiff failed to object to some of those allegedly improper comments and failed to seek curative instructions or a mistrial when her objections to others were sustained ( see Duran v. Ardee Assoc., 290 A.D.2d 366; Lind v. City of New York, 270 A.D.2d 315, 317; Balsz v. A T Bus Co., 252 A.D.2d 458, 458-459).