| Adetimirin v Howland Hook Hous. Co., Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01416 [92 AD3d 814] |
| February 21, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Temitope Adetimirin et al., Appellants, v Howland HookHousing Co., Inc., et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Brody, Benard & Branch, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Tanya M. Branch of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), entered March 10, 2010,which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, and upon the denialof the plaintiffs' motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict ascontrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendants andagainst them dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On June 18, 2006, a Sunday night, the injured plaintiff allegedly entered an unlightedstairwell located in a 13-story apartment building in which she lived, which was owned andmanaged by the defendants, where she slipped and fell on a wet substance on the stairwelllanding. The injured plaintiff, and her husband, asserting a derivative claim, commenced thisaction alleging that the defendants' negligence and violation of certain New York CityAdministrative Code provisions caused the accident. The action proceeded to trial before a jury,at which the plaintiffs testified that the lights in the stairwell were not working and there was apuddle of urine on the stairwell landing. A handyman who worked Monday through Friday at thesubject building, who had the responsibility to inspect, maintain, and repair the premises,testified that, although in the past he had received complaints of urine in the stairwell andnonworking lights, he did not observe these conditions before or after the weekend of the injuredplaintiff's accident.
After a trial on the issue of liability, the jury returned a verdict finding, in answer to the firstquestion on the verdict sheet, that the subject premises were in a reasonably safe condition at thetime of the accident. The plaintiffs' counsel moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to setaside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, and the courtdenied the motion. A judgment dismissing the complaint was entered on the verdict, and theplaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless [*2]the evidence so preponderates in favor of the moving party that thejury could not have reached its verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik vBig V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Seong Yim Kim v New York City Tr. Auth., 87 AD3d 531, 532[2011]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133-134 [1985]). "It is within the province ofthe jury to determine issues of credibility, and great deference is accorded to the jury given itsopportunity to see and hear the witnesses" (Palermo v Original California Taqueria, Inc., 72 AD3d 917, 918[2010]). Here, based on the evidence submitted to the jury, its determination that the subject areawas reasonably safe on the date of the accident is supported by a fair interpretation of theevidence and, therefore, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, A.P.J., Angiolillo, Eng andCohen, JJ., concur.