| Alatzas v National R.R. Passenger Corp. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08567 [67 AD3d 832] |
| November 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Emmanuel Alatzas, Appellant, v National RailroadPassenger Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford, P.C., New York, N.Y. (William G. Ballaine and RobertAnderson of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries pursuant to the Federal Employers'Liability Act (45 USC § 51 et seq.), the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of theSupreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), entered August 12, 2008, which, upon a jury verdicton the issue of liability in favor of the defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation andagainst him, and upon an order of the same court dated May 31, 2007, denying his motionpursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), inter alia, to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of theevidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendant National Railroad PassengerCorporation and against him, in effect, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against thatdefendant.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless thejury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik vBig V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129,134 [1985]). Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidencedoes not involve a question of law, but rather, requires a discretionary balancing of many factors(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). It is for the trier of fact tomake determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference is accorded to thefactfinders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see Bertelle v New York City Tr.Auth., 19 AD3d 343 [2005]). Under the circumstances, the jury verdict is supported bya fair interpretation of the evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branchof the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) which was to set aside the verdict as contraryto the weight of the evidence and for a new trial (cf. Sneddon v CSX Transp., 46 AD3d 1345, 1346-1347 [2007]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Dickerson andLott, JJ., concur.