Opinion
February 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants contend that the jury's verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree. For a court to conclude as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence "[i]t is necessary to first conclude that there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational men to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial" (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499). Upon a review of the record, it cannot be said that the jury's verdict in this case was irrational.
We also reject the defendants' claim that the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence. A jury verdict will not be set aside unless a court finds that the jurors could not have reached their verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nelson v City of New Rochelle, 154 A.D.2d 661; Taype v City of New York, 82 A.D.2d 648). A review of the evidence adduced in the present case demonstrates that there was a fair basis for the verdict in the plaintiff's favor. Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.