| Dunnaville v Metropolitan Tr. Auth. of City of N.Y. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09609 [68 AD3d 1047] |
| December 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Cynthia Dunnaville et al., Appellants, v MetropolitanTransit Authority of City of New York et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Lawrence Heisler of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered November 6, 2008,which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to setaside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and, in effect, for a new trial, is infavor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.
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 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).Here, the jury's determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (seeSolazzo v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 734 [2005]; Skouras v New York City Tr.Auth., 48 AD3d 547 [2008]; DeStefano v City of New York, 41 AD3d 528 [2007];Dowden v Long Is. R.R., 305 AD2d 631 [2003]).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Skelos, J.P.,Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.