Solon v Voziianov
2008 NY Slip Op 09066 [56 AD3d 654]
November 18, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 7, 2009


Ernest Solon, Appellant,
v
Alexsi Voziianov et al.,Defendants, and Anthony M. Degrottole, Respondent.

[*1]Michael B. Palillo P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J.Isaac, Diane K. Toner, and Jillian Rosen], of counsel), for appellant.

MacCartney, MacCartney, Kerrigan & MacCartney, Nyack, N.Y. (Catherine H. Friesen ofcounsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated April17, 2007, as denied that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside ajury verdict in favor of the defendant Anthony M. Degrottole and against him as against theweight of the evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jurycould not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v BigV Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 184 [1985]).Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does notinvolve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors (seeCohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129[1985]). Here, the parties provided conflicting testimony as to the facts surrounding the accident.Divergent accounts raised questions of credibility to be resolved by the jury. Great deference isaccorded to the factfinders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (seeBertelle v New York City [*2]Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 343[2005]). Applying these principles to the facts of this case, it simply cannot be said that theevidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that the jury could not have reached its verdictin favor of the defendant Anthony M. Degrottole on any fair interpretation of the evidence.

In light of our determination, we need not reach Degrottole's remaining contentions. Mastro,J.P., Rivera, Covello and Leventhal, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.