Summary
In Hernandez v Carter and Parr Mobile, Inc. (224 AD2d 586, 587 [2d Dept 1996]), the Court instructed that "[i]t is beyond cavil that the determination of the jury which observed the witnesses and the evidence is entitled to great deference.
Summary of this case from Barchester Realty Corp. v. N.H. Ins. Co.Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We reject the plaintiffs' contention that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The jury verdict in favor of the defendant should not be set aside and judgment granted to the plaintiffs unless there is no valid line of reasoning by which the jury could have reached its conclusion ( see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129). In this instance, the jury had a valid basis upon which it could find for the defendant. Therefore, there is no basis to overturn its verdict and grant judgment to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs are not entitled to a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. It is beyond cavil that the determination of the jury which observed the witnesses and the evidence is entitled to great deference. We find that the jury's determination in favor of the defendant was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence and we reject the plaintiffs' contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see, e.g., Greenberg v. Behlen, 220 A.D.2d 720; Nicastro v. Park, supra).
We reject the plaintiffs' contention that the Supreme Court's failure to grant their motion for a unified trial requires a reversal of the judgment. While it is ordinarily the better practice to direct a unified trial in cases involving dog bites, any such error in failing to do so here was harmless since the plaintiffs were permitted to sufficiently explore both the nature and extent of the injuries to the plaintiff Felipe Hernandez as well as how those injuries were allegedly inflicted ( see, Hayden v. Sieni, 196 A.D.2d 573; Lynch v. Nacewicz, 126 A.D.2d 708).
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.