| Goldsmith Motors Corp. v Chemical Bank |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07894 [78 AD3d 655] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Goldsmith Motors Corp., Respondent, v Chemical Bank,Appellant. |
—[*1] Gordon & Haffner, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Steven Haffner of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for libel arising out of the wrongful dishonor of checks, thedefendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated August 13,2008, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 5524 (b) to direct theclerk of the court to enter an amended judgment upon remittitur from this Court by decision and orderdated June 19, 2007 (see Goldsmith MotorsCorp. v Chemical Bank, 41 AD3d 648 [2007]).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Following trial, a jury awarded certain damages to the plaintiff. Thereafter, by judgment enteredOctober 21, 2005, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was, ineffect, to set aside the jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law. Consequently, the SupremeCourt did not consider that branch of the defendant's motion which was, in effect, to set aside the juryverdict on the issue of damages and for a new trial. On a prior appeal in this matter, by decision andorder dated June 19, 2007, this Court reversed the judgment, finding that the jury could have rationallyconcluded that the defendant's wrongful dishonor of checks was a proximate cause of the damagessustained by the plaintiff (see Goldsmith Motors Corp. v Chemical Bank, 41 AD3d at 650). Inaddition, this Court directed that the matter be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for theentry of an appropriate amended judgment (id.).
In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's cross motionpursuant to CPLR 5524 (b) directing the clerk of the Supreme Court to enter an amended judgmentupon remittitur from this Court following the decision and order dated June 19, 2007. We affirm.
Under the unusual circumstances of this case, the defendant never had review of its assertion thatthe jury verdict on the issue of damages was contrary to the weight of the evidence and that a new trialshould be held on the issue of damages. On this appeal, that issue has been briefed by the parties and,in the interests of judicial economy, we address the defendant's contention that the jury verdict on theissue of damages was contrary to the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be held on thatissue.[*2]
A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weightof the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of theevidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]). It is for the trier of fact tomake determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference is accorded to thefactfinders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see Bertelle v New York City Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 343 [2005]).Contrary to the defendant's contention, the jury verdict on the issue of damages was not contrary to theweight of the evidence, as it was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence. Accordingly, theSupreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 5524 (b) directing theclerk of the Supreme Court to enter an amended judgment upon remittitur from this Court.
In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant's remaining contentions. Dillon,J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.