| Palermo v Original California Taqueria, Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03297 [72 AD3d 917] |
| April 20, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Ramon Palermo, Appellant, v Original CaliforniaTaqueria, Inc., et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] MacCartney, MacCartney, Kerrigan & MacCartney, Nyack, N.Y. (Catherine Friesen ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false imprisonment and battery, the plaintiffappeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered February 5,2009, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing thecomplaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless it could nothave been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big VSupermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Dunnaville v Metropolitan Tr. Auth. of City of N.Y., 68 AD3d1047 [2009]; Artusa v CostcoWholesale, 27 AD3d 499, 500 [2006]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 132-137[1985]). Whether a verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence is not aquestion of law, but instead requires the discretionary balancing of various factors (seeCohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; Alatzas v National R.R. Passenger Corp., 67 AD3d 832, 833[2009]). It is within the province of the jury to determine issues of credibility, and greatdeference is accorded to the jury given its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see DeToia v Yellow Transp., Inc., 68AD3d 804, 805 [2009]; Fowler vJamaica Bus, 62 AD3d 943 [2009]).
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, there is no basis in the record to disturb the jury'sresolution of the issues in favor of the defendants, and the verdict is supported by a fairinterpretation of the evidence (see e.g.McGovern v Iqbal, 63 AD3d 803 [2009]; Gonyon v MB Tel., 36 AD3d 592 [2007]; Dicke v Anci, 31 AD3d 696[2006]). Mastro, J.P., Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.