MUNOZ v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The jury's verdict on the issue of liability is supported by legally sufficient evidence, since there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury ( see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; Schwalb v Kulaski, 38 AD3d 876, 877). Contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiffs testimony was not so manifestly untrue, physically impossible, or contrary to common experience as to render it incredible as a matter of law ( see Ahr v Karolewski, 48 AD3d 719; cf. Loughlin v City of New York, 186 AD2d 176, 177). Moreover, the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134).