KAPLAN v. MIRANDA (2007)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered July 7, 2005, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against him on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

 For a court to conclude that a jury verdict is unsupported “by sufficient evidence as a matter of law, there must be ‘no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial’ ” (Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 132, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184, quoting Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145;  see also Soto v. New York City Transit Auth., 6 N.Y.3d 487, 813 N.Y.S.2d 701, 846 N.E.2d 1211).   Moreover, a jury verdict will not be set aside and a new trial granted unless the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see CPLR 4404 [a];  Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., supra at 498-499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145;   Bobek v. Crystal, 291 A.D.2d 521, 522, 739 N.Y.S.2d 396;  Nicastro v. Park, supra at 134, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184).   In this case, the verdict on the issue of liability was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Soto v. New York City Transit Auth., supra;  Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., supra at 498-499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145;  Bobek v. Crystal, supra at 522, 739 N.Y.S.2d 396;   Nicastro v. Park, supra at 132-133, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.