AYALA v. LINDY'S

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the appeal from the judgment brings up for review both the denial of the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 and the subsequent order entered May 16, 2007, denying that branch of the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) which was to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law ( see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

After the trial on damages, the jury returned a verdict finding that, as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff suffered a significant limitation of use of a body function or system and also sustained a medically determined injury of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him, for 90 of the 180 days following the subject accident, from performing his usual and customary activities. We find that there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead rational persons to the conclusions reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial ( see Szczerbiak v Pilot, 90 NY2d 553, 556; Tapia v Dattco, Inc., 32 AD3d 842, 843-844). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.