Young Hee Lee v Inspa World

Young Hee Lee v Inspa World 2011 NY Slip Op 09314 Decided on December 20, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 20, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2011-02718
(Index No. 7470/08)

[*1]Young Hee Lee, respondent,

v

Inspa World, et al., appellants. Steven F. Goldstein, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y., for appellants. Sim & Park, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for respondent.




DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered February 15, 2011, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant Inspa World 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Inspa World in the principal sum of $70,000.

ORDERED that the appeal by the defendant Chon Property Corp., is dismissed, as it is not aggrieved by the judgment (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed on the appeal of the defendant Inspa World; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744; Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129). The jury's determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses are given deference, given its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see Ahr v Karolewski, 48 AD3d 719; Bertelle v New York City Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 343). Applying these principles to the facts of this case, the jury's determination that the defendant Inspa World was 100% at fault in the happening of the accident was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

Inspa World's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, A.P.J., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur. [*2]

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court