| Stewart v Marte |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00358 [91 AD3d 754] |
| Jnury 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Dolores Stewart, Respondent, v Sandy Marte et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Grey & Grey, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Sherman B. Kerner of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), entered February 14, 2011, which, upon a juryverdict finding that the defendant Sandy Marte was negligent, but that his negligence was not asubstantial factor in causing the accident, granted the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
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]). "A jury's finding that a party was at faultbut that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against theweight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logicallyimpossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause" (Garrett v Manaser, 8 AD3d 616,617 [2004]; see Schaefer v Guddemi, 182 AD2d 808, 809 [1992]; Rubin vPecoraro, 141 AD2d 525, 527 [1988]).
Under the circumstances presented here, the jury's determination that the defendant driverwas negligent but that his negligent operation of his vehicle was not a substantial factor incausing the accident was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Courtproperly granted the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and fora new trial. Mastro, A.P.J., Balkin, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.