| Fowler v Jamaica Bus |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04190 [62 AD3d 943] |
| May 26, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Clegguy Fowler et al., Appellants, et al.,Plaintiffs, v Jamaica Bus et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. (Andrew Zajac of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs Clegguy Fowler andLydie Fowler appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Ritholtz, J.), entered November 2, 2007, as, upon a jury verdict, andupon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary tothe weight of the evidence, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted by them.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The contention of the plaintiffs Clegguy Fowler and Lydie Fowler (hereinafter the plaintiffs)that the jury verdict in favor of the defendants was not supported by legally sufficient evidence isnot preserved for appellate review (cf.Graham v Weintraub, 57 AD3d 609 [2008]).
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to setaside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Whether a jury verdict should be setaside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather,requires a discretionary balancing of many factors (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45NY2d 493 [1978]). It is for the trier of fact to make determinations as to the credibility of thewitnesses, and great deference is accorded to the factfinders, who had the opportunity to see andhear the witnesses (see Bertelle v NewYork City Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 343 [2005]). Under the circumstances, the jury verdict issupported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86NY2d 744 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Spolzino, J.P., Covello,Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.