| Young Hee Lee v Inspa World |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09314 [90 AD3d 915] |
| December 20, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Young Hee Lee, Respondent, v Inspa World et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Sim & Park, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgmentof the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered February 15, 2011, which, upona jury verdict finding the defendant Inspa World 100% at fault in the happening of the accident,is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Inspa World in the principal sum of $70,000.
Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Chon Property Corp., is dismissed, as it is notaggrieved by the judgment (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed on the appeal of the defendant Inspa World; and it isfurther,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jurycould not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v BigV Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744 [1995]; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493[1978]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Whether a jury verdict should be setaside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but ratherrequires a discretionary balancing of many factors (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45NY2d 493 [1978]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). The jury's determinations asto the credibility of the witnesses are given deference, given its opportunity to see and hear thewitnesses (see Ahr v Karolewski, 48AD3d 719 [2008]; Bertelle v NewYork City Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 343 [2005]). Applying these principles to the facts of thiscase, the jury's determination that the defendant Inspa World was 100% at fault in the happeningof the accident was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro vPark, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]).
Inspa World's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, A.P.J., Chambers, Austinand Miller, JJ., concur.