Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The standard for determining whether a jury verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence is whether the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746; Handwerker v Dominick L. Cervi, Inc., 57 AD3d 615; Tapia v Dattco, Inc., 32 AD3d 842). When a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view ( see Tapia v Dattco, Inc., 32 AD3d at 842). Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury's conclusion.
The damages awarded for past pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be considered reasonable compensation ( see CPLR 5501 [c]; Handwerker v Dominick L. Cervi Inc., 57 AD3d at 615). Furthermore, since there was a fair interpretation of the evidence ( id. at 616), upon which the jury could have concluded that the plaintiff had fully recovered from his injuries as of the time of the verdict, no basis exists to disturb the jury verdict, insofar as it awarded the plaintiff no damages for future pain and suffering.