| Vaccarino v Mad Den, Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07986 [100 AD3d 867] |
| November 21, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| John A. Vaccarino et al., Appellants, v Mad Den, Inc.,Doing Business as CafÉ Strega, et al., Respondents. |
—[*1]
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scheinkman, J.), entered September 20,2010, which, upon a jury verdict, and an order of the same court entered August 30, 2010, amongother things, denying the branch of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) which was to setaside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of thedefendants and against them dismissing the complaint and on the defendants' counterclaims andagainst them in the principal sum of $216,875.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
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, 746 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134[1985]). 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 493, 499 [1978]; Fowler v Jamaica Bus, 62 AD3d943 [2009]). It is for the trier of fact to make determinations as to the credibility ofwitnesses, and great deference is accorded to the factfinders in this regard, as they had theopportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see Alatzas v National R.R. Passenger Corp., 67 AD3d 832 [2009];Bertelle v New York City Tr. Auth.,19 AD3d 343 [2005]). In this case, the jury verdict is supported by a fair interpretation of theevidence (see Palermo v OriginalCalifornia Taqueria, Inc., 72 AD3d 917 [2010]; Exarhouleas v Green 317 Madison, LLC, 46 AD3d 854 [2007]; Rahman v Smith, 40 AD3d 613[2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' motionpursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) which was to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of theevidence and for a new trial.
The Supreme Court's charge, as a whole, adequately conveyed the proper legal principles tothe jury (see Nestorowich v Ricotta, 97 NY2d 393, 400-401 [2002]; Winderman v Brooklyn/McDonald Ave.Shoprite Assoc., Inc., 85 AD3d 1018 [2011]; Delong v County of Chautauqua, 71 AD3d 1580 [2010]).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Lott andRoman, JJ., concur.