| Johnson v Yue Yu Chen |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02054 [104 AD3d 915] |
| March 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Tanika Johnson, Appellant, v Yue Yu Chen et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Longo & D'Apice, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Mark A. Longo of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated October 7, 2011, whichdenied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict in favor of thedefendant on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law or, in thealternative, to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for anew trial.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether thereis any "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead [a]rational [person] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidencepresented at trial" (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]).Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, as we must(see Campbell v City of Elmira, 84 NY2d 505, 509 [1994]), we find that a validline of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to theconclusion reached by the jury herein.
A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unlessthe jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence(see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 745-746 [1995]; Nicastro vPark, 113 AD2d 129, 130 [1985]). Where the verdict can be reconciled with areasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption thatthe jury adopted that view (seeZito v City of New York, 49 AD3d 872, 874 [2008]). In determining whether toset aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, deference must beaccorded to the jury's assessment of the witnesses' credibility (see Bonny v Pierre, 91 AD3d694 [2012]; MirancoContr., Inc. v Perel, 57 AD3d 956 [2008]). Contrary to the plaintiff's assertion,the verdict in this case was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (seeNicastro v Park, 113 AD2d at 134). Dillon, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ.,concur.