Salce v. CheckSalce v. Check
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant violated
On these facts, no fair interpretation of the evidence could have resulted in a verdict that the defendant was not negligent (see Rossani v Rana, 8 AD3d 548, 549 [2004]; Batal v Associated Univs., supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial (see
The remaining contentions of the parties need not be reached in light of our determination. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.