| Vittorio v U-Haul Co. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07743 [77 AD3d 917] |
| October 26, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Patrizia Vittorio, as Administratrix of the Estate of JosephineVittorio, Deceased, Appellant, v U-Haul Company et al., Respondents, et al.,Defendant. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment ofthe Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated January 22, 2009, which, upon a juryverdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants U-Haul Company, U-Haul Companyof New York, Inc., and U-Haul International, Inc., and against her dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against those defendants.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff's contention that the verdict sheet interrogatories failed to state the appropriatestandard to be applied by the jury in determining the issue of the respondents' liability isunpreserved for appellate review (see Laboda v VJV Dev. Corp., 296 AD2d 441 [2002];Calabrese v Cheung W. Chan, 244 AD2d 376 [1997]).
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the verdict was not contrary to the weight of theevidence. The evidence did not so preponderate in favor of the plaintiff that the verdict in favorof the respondents could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (seeLolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Barnett v Schwartz, 47 AD3d 197, 205 [2007]; Slezak v PrimeAutomotive Parts Co., 233 AD2d 434 [1996]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129[1985]).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Fisher, J.P.,Santucci, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.