| Munoz v City of New York |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07885 [55 AD3d 697] |
| October 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Theodore Munoz, Respondent, v City of New York et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Wade T. Morris, New York, N.Y. (Candice A. Pluchino of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an amendedjudgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated March 7, 2007, which, upon, interalia, a jury verdict finding them 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, and upon the denial ofthat branch of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) which was to set aside the verdict and forjudgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint or, to set aside the verdict as against the weight ofthe evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of$990,000.
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The jury's verdict on the issue of liability is supported by legally sufficient evidence, since there wasa valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusionreached by the jury (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; Schwalb v Kulaski, 38 AD3d 876, 877[2007]). Contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff's testimony was not so manifestly untrue,physically impossible, or contrary to common experience as to render it incredible as a matter of law(see Ahr v Karolewski, 48 AD3d719 [2008]; cf. Loughlin v City of New York, 186 AD2d 176, 177 [1992]). Moreover,the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113AD2d 129, 134 [1985]). Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Miller and Balkin, JJ., concur.