Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A jury verdict should not be set aside as against 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, 746; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134, 136). 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, 499; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d at 133).
Here, the plaintiff and the defendant driver gave two conflicting factual accounts of the manner in which the subject accident occurred. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury was justified in crediting the defendant driver's version of events. Under the circumstances, the jury's determination that the plaintiffs violation of Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 4-03 (c) (3) and § 4-04 (b) (2) constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.