| Jankauskas v Sandberg |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02751 [71 AD3d 1090] |
| March 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jennifer Jankauskas, Appellant, v Abraham Sandberg etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] MacKay, Wrynn & Brady, LLP, Douglaston, N.Y. (Christine Brennan and James Gilroy ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgmentof the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated August 26, 2008, which, upon a juryverdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing thecomplaint.
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]).A jury finding that a party was negligent, but that the negligence was not a proximate cause ofthe accident, is inconsistent and contrary to the weight of the evidence only when the issues are"so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without alsofinding proximate cause" (Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 AD2d 525, 527 [1988]; see Zhaguiv Gilbo, 63 AD3d 919 [2009]; Jaffier v Wilson, 54 AD3d 725 [2008]). "Where theverdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitledto the presumption that the jury adopted that view" (Koopersmith v General MotorsCorp., 63 AD2d 1013, 1014 [1978]; see Zhagui v Gilbo, 63 AD3d 919 [2009];Jaffier v Wilson, 54 AD3d at 726; Rubin v Pecoraro, 141 AD2d at 526). Here,the issues of negligence and proximate cause were not inextricably interwoven, and the jury'sdetermination that the defendant was negligent but that the negligence was not a proximate causeof the accident, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Rubin v Pecoraro,141 AD2d 525 [1988]).
The plaintiff's contention that she was prejudiced by defense counsel's summation isunpreserved for appellate review because she raised no objection to the comments now allegedto have been improper (see Wilson v City of New York, 65 AD3d 906, 908 [2009];Lucian v Schwartz, 55 AD3d 687, 689 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Eng andChambers, JJ., concur.