| DeToia v Yellow Transp., Inc. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09180 [68 AD3d 804] |
| December 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Gerard DeToia, Appellant, v Yellow Transportation, Inc.,et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., New York, N.Y. (Douglas P. Catalano and Neil G. Sparber ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for discrimination in employment on the basis ofrace and national origin and the creation of a hostile work environment in violation of ExecutiveLaw § 296, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Woodard, J.), dated March 28, 2008, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of his oralapplication pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of theevidence, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's oral application pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Whether a jury verdictshould be set aside 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,45 NY2d 493, 498-499 [1978]). It is for the trier of fact to make determinations as to thecredibility of the witnesses, and great deference is accorded to the factfinders, who had theopportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see Bertelle v New York City Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 343 [2005]).Under the circumstances here, the jury verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of theevidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Nicastro vPark, 113 AD2d 129, 132-137 [1985]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.P., Santucci, Chambersand Lott, JJ., concur.