| Amajie v Muchai |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05862 [109 AD3d 852] |
| September 18, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Richard Amajie, Appellant, v Rhesa M. Muchai etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Newman and Newman LLP, Jamaica, N.Y. (Gregory J. Newman of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ritholtz, J.), entered June 27, 2012,which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him on the issue ofliability, and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside theverdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, only awarded himdamages pursuant to the parties' high-low agreement.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
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, 746 [1995]; Verizon N.Y., Inc. v Orange &Rockland Utils., Inc., 100 AD3d 983 [2012]; Piazza v Corporate Bldrs. Group,Inc., 73 AD3d 1006, 1006-1007 [2010]). Whether a jury verdict should be setaside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, butrather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors (see Cohen v HallmarkCards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 133[1985]). "It is for the jury to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses,and great deference in this regard is accorded to the jury, which had the opportunity tosee and hear the witnesses" (Exarhouleas v Green 317 Madison, LLC, 46 AD3d 854,855 [2007]; see Salony vMastellone, 72 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2010]).
Applying these principles here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supported thejury's determination that the defendants were not negligent (see Geary v Church of St. ThomasAquinas, 98 AD3d 646 [2012]). Dillon, J.P., Roman, Miller and Hinds-Radix,JJ., concur.