| Geary v Church of St. Thomas Aquinas |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06011 [98 AD3d 646] |
| August 22, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Laura Geary, Appellant, v Church of St. Thomas Aquinas,Respondent. |
—[*1] Murphy & Higgins LLP, New Rochelle, N.Y. (Dan Schiavetta, Jr., of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), entered April 25, 2011, which, upon a juryverdict in favor of the defendant and against her on the issue of liability, and upon the denial ofher motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter oflaw or, in the alternative, to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and fora new trial, is in favor of the defendant and against her, dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell on a defect in the sidewalkabutting premises owned by the defendant. Following a jury trial on the issue of liability, the juryfound that the defendant was not negligent, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendantand against the plaintiff, dismissing the complaint.
For a reviewing court to determine that a jury's verdict is not supported by legally sufficientevidence, it must conclude that there is "simply no valid line of reasoning and permissibleinferences" by which the jury could have rationally reached its verdict "on the basis of theevidence presented at trial" (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; seeSzczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; Guclu v 900 Eighth Ave. Condominium, LLC, 81 AD3d 592, 592[2011]). In addition, a jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of theevidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of theevidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Chavanne v BZL Cleaning Solution,Inc., 84 AD3d 852, 853 [2011]; Piazza v Corporate Bldrs. Group, Inc., 73 AD3d 1006, 1006-1007[2010]). Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence doesnot involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d at 499; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129,133 [1985]). " 'It is for the jury to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, andgreat deference in this regard is accorded to the jury, which had the opportunity to see and hearthe witnesses' " (Jean-Louis v City ofNew York, 86 AD3d 628, 629 [2011], quoting Exarhouleas [*2]v Green 317 Madison,LLC, 46 AD3d 854, 855 [2007]; see Salony v Mastellone, 72 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2010]).
Applying these principles here, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferencesby which the jury could have rationally reached its verdict on the basis of the evidence presentedat trial, and a fair interpretation of the evidence supported the jury's determination that thedefendant was not negligent (seeLoughren v County of Ulster, 75 AD3d 976, 977 [2010]; Muniz v New York City Tr. Auth., 30AD3d 388, 389-390 [2006]).
We agree with the plaintiff that the Supreme Court erred in precluding her from introducinginto evidence certain photographs (see People v Patterson, 93 NY2d 80, 84 [1999];People v Byrnes, 33 NY2d 343, 347 [1974]). However, this error was harmless, as thereis no indication that the evidence would have had a substantial influence on the result of the trial(see CPLR 2002; Parlante vCavallero, 73 AD3d 1001, 1003 [2010]; Milone v Milone, 266 AD2d 363[1999]). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.