RUTH HARRIS PLAINTIFF APPELLANT v. WILLIAM STOELZEL AND SHIRLEY STOELZEL DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS (2012)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:  Plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that she acquired an easement by prescription on three portions of defendants' property, for the benefit of her property.   Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants.   Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review her contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as she failed to make a timely motion to set aside the verdict on that ground (see Murdoch v Niagara Falls Bridge Commn., 81 AD3d 1456, 1457, lv denied 17 NY3d 702;  Homan v. Herzig [appeal No. 2], 55 AD3d 1413, 1413–1414).   In any event, it cannot be said that “the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Martinez v. Wascom, 57 AD3d 1415, 1416 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Manouselis v. Woodworth Realty, LLC, 83 AD3d 801;  see generally Lolik v. Big v. Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court