| Costa v Lopez |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05827 [120 AD3d 607] |
| August 20, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Fernando Costa, Appellant, v Byron Lopez,Respondent. |
Lisa M. Comeau, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
O'Connor, O'Connor, Hintz & Deveney, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Dawn C.Faillace-Dillon of counsel), for respondent.
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, 2013,which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and against him on the issue ofliability, and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside thejury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of thedefendant and against him.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On November 9, 2008, the plaintiff was riding his bicycle eastbound on CaldwellAvenue in Queens, a one-way street where traffic proceeds westbound. At theintersection of Caldwell Avenue and 69th Lane, a livery taxi operated by the defendant,which was traveling northbound on 69th Lane, allegedly struck the plaintiff, causing himto sustain injuries.
After a jury trial on the issue of liability, the jury determined that the defendant wasnot negligent. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a newtrial.
A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unlessthe jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see See v Baltic Estates, Inc.,90 AD3d 737, 738 [2011]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Here,the jury was presented with conflicting accounts of the manner in which the subjectaccident occurred. "Where [as here] the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable viewof the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adoptedthat view" (Johnson v Yue YuChen, 104 AD3d 915, 916 [2013]).
Since the jury verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, there isno basis to disturb it (see See v Baltic Estates, Inc., 90 AD3d at 738). Dillon, J.P.,Chambers, Hall and Maltese, JJ., concur.