| Rivera v MTA Long Is. Bus |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08432 [45 AD3d 557] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Paula Rivera, Appellant, v MTA Long Island Bus et al.,Respondents, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Sciretta & Venterina, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (Marilyn Venterina of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered June 12, 2006, which denied hermotion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendants MTALong Island Bus, Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, and Pantelis D. Kapsalis on the issue ofliability as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial on that issue.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff's contention that the jury verdict was inconsistent is not preserved for appellatereview, since she did not raise that issue before the jury was discharged (see Barry vManglass, 55 NY2d 803, 806 [1981]; Delacruz v Galaxy Elecs., 300 AD2d 278[2002]; Miller v Long Is. R.R., 286 AD2d 713, 714 [2001]). In any event, the verdict wasnot inconsistent or against the weight of the evidence. A jury verdict should not be set aside asagainst the weight of the evidence if supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Yau v New York City Tr. Auth., 10AD3d 654, 655 [2004]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]). "A jury'sfinding that a party was at fault but that that fault was not a proximate cause of the accident isinconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are 'so inextricablyinterwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximatecause' " (Schaefer v Guddemi, 182 AD2d 808, 809 [1992], quoting Rubin v Pecoraro,141 AD2d 525, 527 [1988]). A contention that a verdict is inconsistent and irreconcilablemust [*2]be reviewed in the context of the court's charge, andwhere it can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitledto the presumption that the jury adopted that view (see Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 AD2d at526).
In the instant case, applying the Supreme Court's charge regarding the broad duties andgeneral obligations of a driver, the jury reasonably concluded that the defendant bus driver wasnegligent in the operation of the bus, but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of theaccident (see Abre v Sherman, 36AD3d 725 [2007]; Serra vRivieccio, 4 AD3d 521, 522 [2004]; Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 AD2d at 526-527).Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.