| Felicia v Boro Crescent Corp. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02215 [105 AD3d 697] |
| April 3, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Albert Felicia, Appellant, v Boro Crescent Corp. etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Nicholas P. Hurzler ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), entered July 29, 2011,which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him on the issue ofliability, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff's contention that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on theissue of liability is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to request that reliefin the Supreme Court (see Miller v Miller, 68 NY2d 871, 873 [1986]; Volino v Long Is. R.R. Co., 83AD3d 693 [2011]; Salony vMastellone, 72 AD3d 1060 [2010]; Gonyon v MB Tel., 36 AD3d 592 [2007]; Ford v Southside Hosp., 12AD3d 561 [2004]).
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the verdict was not contrary to the weight ofthe evidence. "[A] jury verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside as contraryto the weight of the evidence unless the evidence preponderates so heavily in theplaintiff's favor that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation ofthe evidence" (Lopreiato vScotti, 101 AD3d 829, 829 [2012]; see Das v Costco Wholesale Corp., 98 AD3d 712 [2012];Coma v City of New York,97 AD3d 715 [2012]; Bonny v Pierre, 91 AD3d 694 [2012]; Semel v Guzman, 84 AD3d1054 [2011]). The jury's determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and itsresolution of conflicting expert testimony, are entitled to deference on appeal, as the juryhad the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see Lopreiato v Scotti, 101AD3d at 830; Verizon N.Y.,Inc. v Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., 100 AD3d 983 [2012]; Vaccarino v Mad Den, Inc.,100 AD3d 867 [2012]; Francis v Leon D. Dematteis Assoc., LLC, 99 AD3d 856[2012]; Jean-Louis v City ofNew York, 86 AD3d 628 [2011]; Ferreira v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 81 AD3d 587 [2011]).Based on the evidence adduced at trial, the verdict in favor of the defendants should notbe disturbed.
It is within the Supreme Court's sound discretion to determine whether a particularwitness is qualified to testify as an expert (see de Hernandez v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 46 AD3d 517[2007]; [*2]Steinbuch v Stern, 2 AD3d 709 [2003];Pignataro v Galarzia, 303 AD2d 667 [2003]; McLamb v MetropolitanSuburban Bus Auth., 139 AD2d 572 [1988]). "The competence of an expert in aparticular subject may derive from long observation and real world experience, and is notdependent upon formal training or attainment of an academic degree in the subject" (Miele v American TobaccoCo., 2 AD3d 799, 802 [2003]; see Caprara v Chrysler Corp., 52 NY2d114, 121 [1981]; McLamb v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 139 AD2d at572). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion inrecognizing the defendants' witness as an expert in the field of accident reconstruction.Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendants' expert's testimony wasproperly admitted since it was "based on facts in the record and his own analysis, notspeculation" (Plainview WaterDist. v Exxon Mobil Corp., 66 AD3d 754, 755 [2009]; see Shi Pei Fang v Heng SangRealty Corp., 38 AD3d 520 [2007]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson,Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.