| Niebles v MTA Bus Co. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07018 [110 AD3d 1047] |
| October 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Yolima Niebles, Appellant, v MTA Bus Companyet al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Lawrence Heisler and Anita Isola of counsel),for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered June 21, 2011,which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against her, and upon the denialof her oral application pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as against theweight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendants and against herdismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On May 14, 2008, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when she fell while exiting abus owned and operated by the defendants. After trial, the jury found that the defendantswere negligent, but that their negligence was not a substantial factor in causing theplaintiff's fall. Thereafter, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's oral applicationpursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of theevidence and for a new trial.
A jury verdict should only be set aside as against the weight of the evidence whenthe verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (seeLolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 745-746 [1995]; Dellamonica v Carvel Corp., 1AD3d 311 [2003]; Bendersky v M & O Enters. Corp., 299 AD2d 434, 435[2002]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]). "It is for the jury to makedeterminations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference in this regard isaccorded to the jury, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses" (Exarhouleas v Green 317 Madison,LLC, 46 AD3d 854, 855 [2007]; see Doran v McNulty, 107 AD3d 843, 844 [2013]). "Ajury's finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of theaccident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues areso inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence withoutalso finding proximate cause" (Garrett v Manaser, 8 AD3d 616, 617 [2004]; see Spero v Awasthi Ltd.Partners, 106 AD3d 988, 989 [2013]). Here, contrary to the plaintiff'scontention, the jury's verdict that the defendants were negligent but that their negligencewas not a proximate cause of the accident was not contrary to the weight of the evidence(see Spero v Awasthi Ltd. Partners, 106 AD3d at 989; Rubin v Pecoraro,141 [*2]AD2d 525 [1988]). Accordingly, the SupremeCourt properly denied the plaintiff's oral application pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to setaside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Lottand Roman, JJ., concur.